Search Results

Search found 13748 results on 550 pages for 'split testing'.

Page 71/550 | < Previous Page | 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78  | Next Page >

• Sounds Good...

  - by andyleonard

  Introduction This post is the twenty-ninth part of a ramble-rant about the software business. The current posts in this series are: Goodwill, Negative and Positive Visions, Quests, Missions Right, Wrong, and Style Follow Me Balance, Part 1 Balance, Part 2 Definition of a Great Team The 15-Minute Meeting Metaproblems: Drama The Right Question Software is Organic, Part 1 Metaproblem: Terror I Don't Work On My Car A Turning Point Human Doings Everything Changes Getting It Right The First Time One-Time...(read more)

  Read the article

• Are there any formal approaches for familiarising oneself with a new or legacy codebase? [closed]

  - by codecowboy

  Possible Duplicate: How do you dive into large code bases? As a contractor, I often encounter legacy codebases which might have little or no supporting documentation. Are there any techniques or best practices? I work with PHP and web applications, though also face situations in which I have to edit code in an unfamiliar language. How can I leave a codebase in better shape, learn something along the way and impress the team I'm working with?

  Read the article

• Should I make a seperate unit test for a method, if it only modifies the parent state?

  - by Dante

  Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class. I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself. Overly simplified example, to get the point across: public class BoxedRabbits { private readonly Box _box; public BoxedRabbits(Box box) { _box = box; } public void SetCount(int count) { _box.Items += count; } } public class Box { public int Items { get; set; } public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits() { return new BoxedRabbits(this); } } var box = new Box(); box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14); Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests: box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14) I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

  Read the article

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

  - by Adam W.

  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 to Convince management that a specific product training is important to QA?

  - by Rahul

  I am leading a QA team of 10 people. we have been received the request for a training of a ETL dataware housing tool for QA, Support and Development. But however the management does not feel that it is important for QA to be involved in such a training as it is support and development team who will be involved ih developing or fixing the issues in the product. How do I convince the management that this training is very important from the QA perspective as this is the team that will find bugs and which will reduce the maintainance cost?

  Read the article

• Quality Assurance tools discrepancies

  - by Roudak

  It is a bit ironic, yesterday I answered a question related to this topic that was marked to be good and today I'm the one who asks. These are my thoughts and a question: Also let's agree on the terms: QA is a set of activities that defines and implements processes during SW development. The common tool is the process audit. However, my colleague at work agrees with the opinion that reviews and inspections are also quality assurance tools, although most sources classify them as quality control. I would say both sides are partially right: during inspections, we evaluate a physical product (clearly QC) but we see it as a white box so we can check its compliance with set processes (QA). Do you think it is the reason of the dichotomy among the authors? I know it is more like an academic question but it deserves the answer :)

  Read the article

• how to architect this to make it unit testable

  - by SOfanatic

  I'm currently working on a project where I'm receiving an object via web service (WSDL). The overall process is the following: Receive object - add/delete/update parts (or all) of it - and return the object with the changes made. The thing is that sometimes these changes are complicated and there is some logic involved, other databases, other web services, etc. so to facilitate this I'm creating a custom object that mimics the original one but has some enhanced functionality to make some things easier. So I'm trying to have this process: Receive original object - convert/copy it to custom object - add/delete/update - convert/copy it back to original object - return original object. Example: public class Row { public List<Field> Fields { get; set; } public string RowId { get; set; } public Row() { this.Fields = new List<Field>(); } } public class Field { public string Number { get; set; } public string Value { get; set; } } So for example, one of the "actions" to perform on this would be to find all Fields in a Row that match a Value equal to something, and update them with some other value. I have a CustomRow class that represents the Row class, how can I make this class unit testable? Do I have to create an interface ICustomRow to mock it in the unit test? If one of the actions is to sum all of the Values in the Fields that have a Number equal to 10, like this function, how can design the custom class to facilitate unit tests. Sample function: public int Sum(FieldNumber number) { return row.Fields.Where(x => x.FieldNumber.Equals(number)).Sum(x => x.FieldValue); } Am I approaching this the wrong way?

  Read the article

• Need Help Hiring a Perfectionist Programmer [closed]

  - by Bryan Hadaway

  I understand my question may be in the gray area, but I'm not able to use the Meta to ask if this question is appropriate or not so I'll simply have to risk it. My project is complete in the sense that it's a fully functional, ready to go 1.0 version. However, that's not good enough for my standards. My expertise is in HTML/CSS, not jQuery and PHP. I'm looking for someone to refine every character of my code for quality, speed, security and compatibility. I want everything to be as bug free as possible for launch. So I need an expert programmer who's a perfectionist in their coding who cares about the quality of their work (not just making it work) to review and refine my code. I'm sure I can't outright post the project's details and hope for interested parties to contact me as that wouldn't be beneficial to the community so instead I'm looking for advice from programmers about where some of best places to hire quality programmers are and the best strategies to hire the right programmer. In other words, screening applicants off of craigslist isn't going to cut it for this project. Thanks

  Read the article

• How do you QA and release software quickly with a large team?

  - by sadadasd

  My work used to be a smaller team. We had less than 13 devs for a while. We are now growing rapidly, and are over 20 with plans to be over 30 in a few months. Our process for QA'ing and releasing each build is no longer working. We currently have everyone develop the new code, and stick it onto a staging environment. A few days before our weekly release, we would freeze the staging environment and QA everything. By our normal release time, everything was usually deemed acceptable and pushed out the door to the main site. We reached a point where our code got too big so we could no longer regress the entire site each week in QA. We were ok with that, we just made a list of everything important and only covered that and the new stuff. Now we are reaching a point where all the new stuff each week is becoming too big and too unstable. Our staging environment is really buggy week after week, and we are usually 1-2 hours behind the normal release time. As the team is growing further, we are going to drown with this same process. We are re-evaluating everything, and I personally am looking for suggestions / success stories. Many companies have been where before and progressed beyond, we need to do the same

  Read the article

• How to keep the trunk stable when tests take a long time?

  - by Oak

  We have three sets of test suites: A "small" suite, taking only a couple of hours to run A "medium" suite that takes multiple hours, usually ran every night (nightly) A "large" suite that takes a week+ to run We also have a bunch of shorter test suites, but I'm not focusing on them here. The current methodology is to run the small suite before each commit to the trunk. Then, the medium suite runs every night, and if in the morning it turned out it failed, we try to isolate which of yesterday's commits was to blame, rollback that commit and retry the tests. A similar process, only at a weekly instead of nightly frequency, is done for the large suite. Unfortunately, the medium suite does fail pretty frequently. That means that the trunk is often unstable, which is extremely annoying when you want to make modifications and test them. It's annoying because when I check out from the trunk, I cannot know for certain it's stable, and if a test fails I cannot know for certain if it's my fault or not. My question is, is there some known methodology for handling these kinds of situations in a way which will leave the trunk always in top shape? e.g. "commit into a special precommit branch which will then periodically update the trunk every time the nightly passes". And does it matter if it's a centralized source control system like SVN or a distributed one like git? By the way I am a junior developer with a limited ability to change things, I'm just trying to understand if there's a way to handle this pain I am experiencing.

  Read the article

• Where should Acceptance tests be written against?

  - by Jonn

  I'm starting to get into writing automated Acceptance tests and I'm quite confused where to write these tests against, specifically what layer in the app. Most examples I've seen are Acceptance tests written against the Domain but how about tests like: Given Incorrect Data When the user submits the form Then Play an Error Beep These seem to be fit for the UI and not for the Domain, or probably even the Service layer.

  Read the article

• Is deserializing complex objects instead of creating them a good idea, in test setup?

  - by Chris Bye

  I'm writing tests for a component that takes very complex objects as input. These tests are mixes of tests against already existing components, and test-first tests for new features. Instead of re-creating my input objects (this would be a large chunk of code) or reading one from our data store, I had the thought to serialize a live instance of one of these objects, and just deserialize it into test setup. I can't decide if this is a reasonable idea that will save effort in long run, or whether it's the worst idea that I've ever had, causing those that will maintain this code will hunt me down as soon as they read it. Is deserialization of inputs a valid means of test setup in some cases? To give a sense of scale of what I'm dealing with, the size of serialization output for one of these input objects is 93KB. Obtained by, in C#: new BinaryFormatter().Serialize((Stream)fileStream, myObject);

  Read the article

• 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

• Skip CodedUI Tests, use Selenium for Web Automation

  - by Aligned

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/10/31/skip-codedui-tests-use-selenium-for-web-automation.aspxI recently joined a team that was using Agile Methodologies to create a new product. They have a working beta product after 10 or so 2 week sprints and already had UI’s that had changed several times as they went through iterations of their UI. As a result, the QA team was falling behind with automated tests and I was tasked to help them catch up and expand their tests. The project is a website. I heard many complaints about how hard it is to work with CodedUI (writing our own code, not relying on the recorder as we wanted re-usable and more maintainable code) then it took me 4+ hours to fix one issue. It was hard to traverse the key and debugging the objects with breakpoints… I said out loud “there has to be a better way or a framework the uses jQuery to run through the tests.” Plus it seemed really slow (wait… finding the object … wait… start putting in text…). Plus some tests would randomly fail on the test agents (using the test settings and an automated build, they are run on VMs using Microsoft test agents). Enough complaining. Selenium to the rescue (mostly). The lead QA guy decided to try it out and we haven’t turned back. We are now running tests in Chrome and Firefox and they run a lot faster. We had IE running to, but some of the tests were running fine locally, but hanging on the test agents. I’ll add some hints and lessons learned in a later post.

  Read the article

• Empirical evidence regarding testability

  - 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, but I can't find any studies which actually demonstrate this. Can someone link me to a study evaluating the effect of testable code vs. quality? The closest I can find is Improving the Testability of Object Oriented Systems, which discusses the relationship between design flaws and testability.

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78  | Next Page >