Search Results

Search found 42756 results on 1711 pages for 'model based testing'.

Page 9/1711 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• SSIS Script Component Testing Strategy

  - by Paul Kohler

  This question is in respect to the script component specifically. I am aware of ssisUnit etc… With simple SSIS Scripts Components, it’s sufficient to let basic testing flesh out issues, however I am working with a script that has grown in complexity over time. To better test the functionality I am considering abstracting the script logic into a DLL that gets deployed with the package, and then use the custom component in the script. The advantage is that the function will be more testable etc but it’s one more deployment artefact that needs to be managed. My question is, does anyone know of a better way to test such an SSIS script in a more isolated manner than to run the whole package and examine the output?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing functions within repository interfaces - ASP.net MVC3 & Moq

  - by RawryLions

  I'm getting into writing unit testing and have implemented a nice repository pattern/moq to allow me to test my functions without using "real" data. So far so good.. However.. In my repository interface for "Posts" IPostRepository I have a function: Post getPostByID(int id); I want to be able to test this from my Test class but cannot work out how. So far I am using this pattern for my tests: [SetUp] public void Setup() { mock = new Mock<IPostRepository>(); } [Test] public void someTest() { populate(10); //This populates the mock with 10 fake entries //do test here } In my function "someTest" I want to be able to call/test the function GetPostById. I can find the function with mock.object.getpostbyid but the "object" is null. Any help would be appreciated :) iPostRepository: public interface IPostRepository { IQueryable<Post> Posts {get;} void SavePost(Post post); Post getPostByID(int id); }

  Read the article

• How to do concurrent modification testing for grails application

  - by werner5471

  I'd like to run tests that simulate users modifying certain data at the same time for a grails application. Are there any plug-ins / tools / mechanisms I can use to do this efficiently? They don't have to be grails specific. It should be possible to fire multiple actions in parallel. I'd prefer to run the tests on functional level (so far I'm using Selenium for other tests) to see the results from the user perspective. Of course this can be done in addition to integration testing if you'd recommend to run concurrent modification tests on integration level as well.

  Read the article

• Implementing Database Settings Using Policy Based Management

  - by Ashish Kumar Mehta

  Introduction Database Administrators have always had a tough time to ensuring that all the SQL Servers administered by them are configured according to the policies and standards of organization. Using SQL Server’s  Policy Based Management feature DBAs can now manage one or more instances of SQL Server 2008 and check for policy compliance issues. In this article we will utilize Policy Based Management (aka Declarative Management Framework or DMF) feature of SQL Server to implement and verify database settings on all production databases. It is best practice to enforce the below settings on each Production database. However, it can be tedious to go through each database and then check whether the below database settings are implemented across databases. In this article I will explain it to you how to utilize the Policy Based Management Feature of SQL Server 2008 to create a policy to verify these settings on all databases and in cases of non-complaince how to bring them back into complaince. Database setting to enforce on each user database : Auto Close and Auto Shrink Properties of database set to False Auto Create Statistics and Auto Update Statistics set to True Compatibility Level of all the user database set as 100 Page Verify set as CHECKSUM Recovery Model of all user database set to Full Restrict Access set as MULTI_USER Configure a Policy to Verify Database Settings 1. Connect to SQL Server 2008 Instance using SQL Server Management Studio 2. In the Object Explorer, Click on Management > Policy Management and you will be able to see Policies, Conditions & Facets as child nodes 3. Right click Policies and then select New Policy…. from the drop down list as shown in the snippet below to open the  Create New Policy Popup window. 4. In the Create New Policy popup window you need to provide the name of the policy as “Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Databases” and then click the drop down list under Check Condition. As highlighted in the snippet below click on the New Condition… option to open up the Create New Condition window. 5. In the Create New Condition popup window you need to provide the name of the condition as “Verify and Change Database Settings”. In the Facet drop down list you need to choose the Facet as Database Options as shown in the snippet below. Under Expression you need to select Field value as @AutoClose and then choose Operator value as ‘ = ‘ and finally choose Value as False. Now that you have successfully added the first field you can now go ahead and add rest of the fields as shown in the snippet below. Once you have successfully added all the above shown fields of Database Options Facet, click OK to save the changes and to return to the parent Create New Policy – Implementing and Verify Database Settings for Production Database windows where you will see that the newly created condition “Verify and Change Database Settings” is selected by default. Continues…

  Read the article

• Sample domain model for online store

  - by Carel

  We are a group of 4 software development students currently studying at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Currently, we are tasked with developing a web application that functions as a online store. We decided to do the back-end in Java while making use of Google Guice for persistence(which is mostly irrelevant for my question). The general idea so far to use PHP to create the website. We decided that we would like to try, after handing in the project, and register a business to actually implement the website. The problem we have been experiencing is with the domain model. These are mostly small issues, however they are starting to impact the schedule of our project. Since we are all young IT students, we have virtually no experience in the business world. As such, we spend quite a significant amount of time planning the domain model in the first place. Now, some of the issues we're picking up is say the reference between the Customer entity and the order entity. Currently, we don't have the customer id in the order entity and we have a list of order entities in the customer entity. Lately, I have wondered if the persistence mechanism will put the client id physically in the order table, even if it's not in the entity? So, I started wondering, if you load a customer object, it will search the entire order table for orders with the customer's id. Now, say you have 10 000 customers and 500 000 orders, won't this take an extremely long time? There are also some business processes that I'm not completely clear on. Finally, my question is: does anyone know of a sample domain model out there that is similar to what we're trying to achieve that will be safe to look at as a reference? I don't want to be accused of stealing anybody's intellectual property, especially since we might implement this as a business.

  Read the article

• Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

  - by Bringer128

  I have always been skeptical of rewriting working code - porting code is no exception to this. However, with the advent of TDD and automated testing it is much more reasonable to rewrite and refactor code. Does anyone know if there is a TDD tool that can be used for porting old code? Ideally you could do the following: Write up language agnostic unit tests for the old code that pass (or fail if you find bugs!). Run unit tests on your other code base that fail. Write code in your new language that passes the tests without looking at the old code. The alternative would be to split step 1 into "Write up unit tests in language 1" and "Port unit tests to language 2", which significantly increases effort required and is difficult to justify if the old code base is going to stop being maintained after the port (that is, you don't get the benefit of continuous integration on this code base). EDIT: It's worth noting this question on StackOverflow.

  Read the article

• ODI 12c's Mapping Designer - Combining Flow Based and Expression Based Mapping

  - by Madhu Nair

  post by David Allan ODI is renowned for its declarative designer and minimal expression based paradigm. The new ODI 12c release has extended this even further to provide an extended declarative mapping designer. The ODI 12c mapper is a fusion of ODI's new declarative designer with the familiar flow based designer while retaining ODI’s key differentiators of: Minimal expression based definition, The ability to incrementally design an interface and to extract/load data from any combination of sources, and most importantly Backed by ODI’s extensible knowledge module framework. The declarative nature of the product has been extended to include an extensible library of common components that can be used to easily build simple to complex data integration solutions. Big usability improvements through consistent interactions of components and concepts all constructed around the familiar knowledge module framework provide the utmost flexibility. Here is a little taster: So what is a mapping? A mapping comprises of a logical design and at least one physical design, it may have many. A mapping can have many targets, of any technology and can be arbitrarily complex. You can build reusable mappings and use them in other mappings or other reusable mappings. In the example below all of the information from an Oracle bonus table and a bonus file are joined with an Oracle employees table before being written to a target. Some things that are cool include the one-click expression cross referencing so you can easily see what's used where within the design. The logical design in a mapping describes what you want to accomplish  (see the animated GIF here illustrating how the above mapping was designed) . The physical design lets you configure how it is to be accomplished. So you could have one logical design that is realized as an initial load in one physical design and as an incremental load in another. In the physical design below we can customize how the mapping is accomplished by picking Knowledge Modules, in ODI 12c you can pick multiple nodes (on logical or physical) and see common properties. This is useful as we can quickly compare property values across objects - below we can see knowledge modules settings on the access points between execution units side by side, in the example one table is retrieved via database links and the other is an external table. In the logical design I had selected an append mode for the integration type, so by default the IKM on the target will choose the most suitable/default IKM - which in this case is an in-built Oracle Insert IKM (see image below). This supports insert and select hints for the Oracle database (the ANSI SQL Insert IKM does not support these), so by default you will get direct path inserts with Oracle on this statement. In ODI 12c, the mapper is just that, a mapper. Design your mapping, write to multiple targets, the targets can be in the same data server, in different data servers or in totally different technologies - it does not matter. ODI 12c will derive and generate a plan that you can use or customize with knowledge modules. Some of the use cases which are greatly simplified include multiple heterogeneous targets, multi target inserts for Oracle and writing of XML. Let's switch it up now and look at a slightly different example to illustrate expression reuse. In ODI you can define reusable expressions using user functions. These can be reused across mappings and the implementations specialized per technology. So you can have common expressions across Oracle, SQL Server, Hive etc. shielding the design from the physical aspects of the generated language. Another way to reuse is within a mapping itself. In ODI 12c expressions can be defined and reused within a mapping. Rather than replicating the expression text in larger expressions you can decompose into smaller snippets, below you can see UNIT_TAX AMOUNT has been defined and is used in two downstream target columns - its used in the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT plus its used in the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT (a recording of the calculation).  You can see the columns that the expressions depend on (upstream) and the columns the expression is used in (downstream) highlighted within the mapper. Also multi selecting attributes is a convenient way to see what's being used where, below I have selected the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT in the target datastore and the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT in UNIT_CALC. You can now see many expressions at once now and understand much more at the once time without needlessly clicking around and memorizing information. Our mantra during development was to keep it simple and make the tool more powerful and do even more for the user. The development team was a fusion of many teams from Oracle Warehouse Builder, Sunopsis and BEA Aqualogic, debating and perfecting the mapper in ODI 12c. This was quite a project from supporting the capabilities of ODI in 11g to building the flow based mapping tool to support the future. I hope this was a useful insight, there is so much more to come on this topic, this is just a preview of much more that you will see of the mapper in ODI 12c.

  Read the article

• How to remove the “AMD Testing use only” watermark from Ubuntu 12.10

  - by Lucio

  I've installed the latest catalyst driver (beta) following the step in this guide for Ubuntu Quantal Quetzal. My system is 64 bit and my graphic card is an ATI RadeonHD 6670, this g.c. is Officially Supported (Catalyst & Open Source), you can confirm that from this AMD Linux Community thread. I don't have any problem, except the AMD testing use only watermark. I see the following frame in any stage into the OS (logged, unlloged, etc.) except in the terminals. I found different versions of how to remove this image, but this change according to the system, so I want an answer from this popular (trusted) site. How to solve this issue in Ubuntu 12.10 32b? This procedure is different in a 64b system?

  Read the article

• Networking Programs Suitable For Symbolic Testing

  - by Milen

  Symbolic execution has been successfully used to test programs and automatically generate test cases. I've been working on my master's thesis that allows the testing of arbitrary networked programs (i.e., those communicating via sockets). Now that we have a working symbolic execution engine that has support for sockets, we're looking for real-world pieces of software to test. Our engine has an important restriction (at the moment): it cannot execute multi-threaded programs. So, we're looking for programs that satisfy the criteria outlined below: Written in C Communicates via sockets (TCP / UDP are supported) Does not rely on the filesystem to get the "job" done Runs on Linux Does not use multi-threading Source is available (so that we can compile them to LLVM bytecode) Most programs that would fall under the criteria would probably be implementations of distributed protocols solving a particular problem (e.g., consensus). Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications

  - by Dejan Sarka

  I am proud to announce that my first course for Pluralsight is released. The course title is Logical and Physical Modeling for Analytical Applications. Here is the description of the course. A bad data model leads to an application that does not perform well. Therefore, when developing an application, you should create a good data model from the start. However, even the best logical model can’t help when the physical implementation is bad. It is also important to know how SQL Server stores and accesses data, and how to optimize the data access. Database optimization starts by splitting transactional and analytical applications. In this course, you learn how to support analytical applications with logical design, get understanding of the problems with data access for queries that deal with large amounts of data, and learn about SQL Server optimizations that help solving these problems. Enjoy the course!

  Read the article

• Is unit testing or test-driven development worthwhile?

  - by Owen Johnson

  My team at work is moving to Scrum and other teams are starting to do test-driven development using unit tests and user acceptance tests. I like the UATs, but I'm not sold on unit testing for test-driven development or test-driven development in general. It seems like writing tests is extra work, gives people a crutch when they write the real code, and might not be effective very often. I understand how unit tests work and how to write them, but can anyone make the case that it's really a good idea and worth the effort and time? Also, is there anything that makes TDD especially good for Scrum?

  Read the article

• A testing feedback/report tool?

  - by Mert

  I'm thinking of developing a pluggable test and assessment module. This tool will be used especially for desktop application projects to report and log errors, bugs, missing features and suggestions from testers. The tool will be plugged to the application by putting a small icon to the application itself. When pressed the tool will be visible where user can create entries about the application. Is there already a tool like that? I am not speaking about UI testing btw. For example, this tool might have a form consisting of Page name Environment information Entry type (can be bug, feature request, suggestion) Message User Info (name, contact etc) Date I think such a tool can greatly help testers prepare reports. Developers can understand the issue better and track all the reports.

  Read the article

• Adobe Air turn based multiplayer Game, sockets vs http bandwidth

  - by Arin Aivazian

  I am developing an Adobe Air multiplayer game for iPad. It is turn based and not realtime. It is like checkers game. I want to use a client server model. I have found 2 options to connect to server so far: socket connection and http requests My question is: Is the bandwidth requirement for socket connection vs http requests different? I need the game to work with very low speed internet connections

  Read the article

• Unit testing time-bound code

  - by maasg

  I'm currently working on an application that does a lot of time-bound operations. That is, based on long now = System.currentTimeMillis();, and combined with an scheduler, it will calculate periods of time that parametrize the execution of some operations. e.g.: public void execute(...) { // executed by an scheduler each x minutes final int now = (int) TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.toSeconds(System.currentTimeMillis()); final int alignedTime = now - now % getFrequency() ; final int startTime = alignedTime - 2 * getFrequency(); final int endTimeSecs = alignedTime - getFrequency(); uploadData(target, startTime, endTimeSecs); } Most parts of the application are unit-tested independently of time (in this case, uploadData has a natural unit test), but I was wondering about best practices for testing time-bound parts that rely on System.currentTimeMillis() ?

  Read the article

• Doing powerups in a component-based system

  - by deft_code

  I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

  Read the article

• Doing powerups in a component-based system

  - by deft_code

  I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

  Read the article

• How to improve testing your own code

  - by Peter

  Hi guys, Today I checked in a change on some code which turned out to be not working at all due to something rather stupid yet very crucial. I feel really bad about it and I hope I finally learn something from it. The stupid thing is, I've done these things before and I always tell myself, next time I won't be so stupid... Then it happens again and I feel even worse about it. I know you should keep your chin up and learn from your mistakes but here's the thing: I try to improve myself, I just don't see how I can prevent these things from happening. So, now I'm asking you guys: Do you have certain groundrules when testing your code?

  Read the article

• How come verification does not include actual testing?

  - by user970696

  Having read a lot about this topic, I still did not get it. Verification should prove that you are building the product right, while validation you build the right product. But only static techniques are mentioned as being verification methods (code reviews, requirements checks...). But how can you say if its implemented correctly if you do not test it? It is said that verification checks e.g. code for its correctnes. Verification - ensure that the product meet specified requirements. Again, if the function is specified to work somehow, only by testing I can say that it does. Could anyone explain this to me please? EDIT: As Wiki says: Verification:Preparing of the test cases (based on the analysis of the requireemnts) Validation: Running of the test cases

  Read the article

• How to update entity states and animations in a component-based game

  - by mivic

  I'm trying to design a component-based entity system for learning purposes (and later use on some games) and I'm having some troubles when it comes to updating entity states. I don't want to have an update() method inside the Component to prevent dependencies between Components. What I currently have in mind is that components hold data and systems update components. So, if I have a simple 2D game with some entities (e.g. player, enemy1, enemy 2) that have Transform, Movement, State, Animation and Rendering components I think I should have: A MovementSystem that moves all the Movement components and updates the State components And a RenderSystem that updates the Animation components (the animation component should have one animation (i.e. a set of frames/textures) for each state and updating it means selecting the animation corresponding to the current state (e.g. jumping, moving_left, etc), and updating the frame index). Then, the RenderSystem updates the Render components with the texture corresponding to the current frame of each entity's Animation and renders everything on screen. I've seen some implementations like Artemis framework, but I don't know how to solve this situation: Let's say that my game has the following entities. Each entity have a set of states and one animation for each state: player: "idle", "moving_right", "jumping" enemy1: "moving_up", "moving_down" enemy2: "moving_left", "moving_right" What are the most accepted approaches in order to update the current state of each entity? The only thing that I can think of is having separate systems for each group of entities and separate State and Animation components so I would have PlayerState, PlayerAnimation, Enemy1State, Enemy1Animation... PlayerMovementSystem, PlayerRenderingSystem... but I think this is a bad solution and breaks the purpose of having a component-based system. As you can see, I'm quite lost here, so I'd very much appreciate any help.

  Read the article

• Scrum got specific ways for testing software?

  - by joker13

  When reading Scrum Guide, as the official text for scrum, I find out there is no specific solution to provide software testing in scrum. (the only hint is on page15) I'm a little vague on whether scrum is considered a software development methodology or not? If it is not, then how come some of its practices opposes Extreme Programming? (I know that in scrum guide, the author notes that scrum is a framework not a methodology, but still I'm not pretty clear on that) And what's more, I'm not sure if there are any other important textbook that I'm missing so far about scrum. I need them to be official or of great deal of public acceptance.

  Read the article

• Testing To Prevent Cascading Bugs

  - by jfrankcarr

  Yesterday, Twitter was hit with a "Cascading Bug" as described in this blog post: A “cascading bug” is a bug with an effect that isn’t confined to a particular software element, but rather its effect “cascades” into other elements as well. I've seen this kind of bug, on a smaller scale of course, on some projects I've worked on. They can be difficult to identify in dev/test environments, even within a test driven development environment. My questions are... What are some strategies you use, beyond the basic TDD and standard regression testing, to identify and prevent the potential trouble points that might only occur in the production environment? Does the presence of such problems indicate a breakdown in the software development process or simply a by-product of complex software systems?

  Read the article

• Testing web applications written in java

  - by Vinoth Kumar

  How do you test the web applications (both server side and client side code)? The testing method has to work irrespective of the framework used (struts, spring web mvc) etc. I am using Java for the server side code, Javascript and HTML for the client side code. This is the sample test case of what I am talking about: 1. When you click on a link, the pop up opens. 2. Change some value in the pop up (say a drop down value) and it gets saved in the DB. 3. Click the popup again, you get the changed values. Can we simulate this kind of thing using unit test cases? Is JUnit enough for this?

  Read the article

• Dog-1 testing as a synonym for integration / system test

  - by SkeetJon

  In the company I'm working for the phrase Dog-1 is used for the software testing scenario where the first piece of data passes through the complete system. Has anyone heard this phrase in a similar context? There's nothing on Google about it in a software development context, so I'm guessing its a idiosyncrasy of my current environment. Is there a recognized phrase in the industry for this kind of test? I don't think it's simply a 'system test' / 'integration test' as 'Dog-1' refers specifically to the first item/unit through the system.

  Read the article

• Testing controller logic that uses ISession directly

  - by Rippo

  I have just read this blog post from Jimmy Bogard and was drawn to this comment. Where this falls down is when a component doesn’t support a given layering/architecture. But even with NHibernate, I just use the ISession directly in the controller action these days. Why make things complicated? I then commented on the post and ask this question:- My question here is what options would you have testing the controller logic IF you do not mock out the NHibernate ISession. I am curious what options we have if we utilise the ISession directly on the controller?

  Read the article

• unit testing on ARM

  - by NomadAlien

  We are developing application level code that runs on an ARM processor. The BSP (low level code) is being delivered by a 3d party so our code sits just on top of this abstraction layer (code is written in c++). To do unit testing, I assume we will have to mock/stub out the BSP library(essentially abstracting out the HW), but what I'm not sure of is if I write/run the unit test on my pc, do I compile it with for example GCC? Normally we use Realview compiler to compile our code for the ARM. Can I assume that if I compile and run the code with x86 compiler and the unit tests pass that it will also pass when compiled with RealView compiler? I'm not sure how much difference the compiler makes and if you can trust that if the x86 compiled code pass the unit tests that you can also be confident that the Realview compiled code is ok.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >