Search Results

Search found 53818 results on 2153 pages for 'system testing'.

Page 93/2153 | < Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >

  • Do you write common pre-conditions for a large number of unit test cases ?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    I have heard/read writing common pre-conditions for a large number of test cases is a bad thing, since this dependency may cause large number of test cases to fail if something changes . What are your thoughts on it ? If this is so , then what exactly is the purpose of setUp() method in Junit that runs before each test case ? If the same code inside setUp() runs before each test case , why cant it run only once before running all the test cases together ?

    Read the article

  • How do I inject test objects when the real objects are created dynamically?

    - by JW01
    I want to make a class testable using dependency injection. But the class creates multiple objects at runtime, and passes different values to their constructor. Here's a simplified example: public abstract class Validator { private ErrorList errors; public abstract void validate(); public void addError(String text) { errors.add( new ValidationError(text)); } public int getNumErrors() { return errors.count() } } public class AgeValidator extends Validator { public void validate() { addError("first name invalid"); addError("last name invalid"); } } (There are many other subclasses of Validator.) What's the best way to change this, so I can inject a fake object instead of ValidationError? I can create an AbstractValidationErrorFactory, and inject the factory instead. This would work, but it seems like I'll end up creating tons of little factories and factory interfaces, for every dependency of this sort. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Physics System ignores collision in some rare cases

    - by Gajoo
    I've been developing a simple physics engine for my game. since the game physics is very simple I've decided to increase accuracy a little bit. Instead of formal integration methods like fourier or RK4, I'm directly computing the results after delta time "dt". based on the very first laws of physics : dx = 0.5 * a * dt^2 + v0 * dt dv = a * dt where a is acceleration and v0 is object's previous velocity. Also to handle collisions I've used a method which is somehow different from those I've seen so far. I'm detecting all the collision in the given time frame, stepping the world forward to the nearest collision, resolving it and again check for possible collisions. As I said the world consist of very simple objects, so I'm not loosing any performance due to multiple collision checking. First I'm checking if the ball collides with any walls around it (which is working perfectly) and then I'm checking if it collides with the edges of the walls (yellow points in the picture). the algorithm seems to work without any problem except some rare cases, in which the collision with points are ignored. I've tested everything and all the variables seem to be what they should but after leaving the system work for a minute or two the system the ball passes through one of those points. Here is collision portion of my code, hopefully one of you guys can give me a hint where to look for a potential bug! void PhysicalWorld::checkForPointCollision(Vec2 acceleration, PhysicsComponent& ball, Vec2& collisionNormal, float& collisionTime, Vec2 target) { // this function checks if there will be any collision between a circle and a point // ball contains informations about the circle (it's current velocity, position and radius) // collisionNormal is an output variable // collisionTime is also an output varialbe // target is the point I want to check for collisions Vec2 V = ball.mVelocity; Vec2 A = acceleration; Vec2 P = ball.mPosition - target; float wallWidth = mMap->getWallWidth() / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()) / 2; float r = ball.mRadius / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()); // r is ball radius scaled to match actual rendered object. if (A.any()) // todo : I need to first correctly solve the collisions in case there is no acceleration return; if (V.any()) // if object is not moving there will be no collisions! { float D = P.x * V.y - P.y * V.x; float Delta = r*r*V.length2() - D*D; if(Delta < eps) return; Delta = sqrt(Delta); float sgnvy = V.y > 0 ? 1: (V.y < 0?-1:0); Vec2 c1(( D*V.y+sgnvy*V.x*Delta) / V.length2(), (-D*V.x+fabs(V.y)*Delta) / V.length2()); Vec2 c2(( D*V.y-sgnvy*V.x*Delta) / V.length2(), (-D*V.x-fabs(V.y)*Delta) / V.length2()); float t1 = (c1.x - P.x) / V.x; float t2 = (c2.x - P.x) / V.x; if(t1 > eps && t1 <= collisionTime) { collisionTime = t1; collisionNormal = c1; } if(t2 > eps && t2 <= collisionTime) { collisionTime = t2; collisionNormal = c2; } } } // this function should step the world forward by dt. it doesn't check for collision of any two balls (components) // it just checks if there is a collision between the current component and 4 points forming a rectangle around it. void PhysicalWorld::step(float dt) { for (unsigned i=0;i<mObjects.size();i++) { PhysicsComponent &current = *mObjects[i]; Vec2 acceleration = current.mForces * current.mInvMass; float rt=dt; // stores how much more the world should advance while(rt > eps) { float collisionTime = rt; Vec2 collisionNormal = Vec2(0,0); float halfWallWidth = mMap->getWallWidth() / (mMap->getWallWidth() + mMap->getHallWidth()) / 2; // we check if there is any collision with any of those 4 points around the ball // if there is a collision both collisionNormal and collisionTime variables will change // after these functions collisionTime will be exactly the value of nearest collision (if any) // and if there was, collisionNormal will report in which direction the ball should return. checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2(floor(current.mPosition.x) + halfWallWidth,floor(current.mPosition.y) + halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2(floor(current.mPosition.x) + halfWallWidth, ceil(current.mPosition.y) - halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2( ceil(current.mPosition.x) - halfWallWidth,floor(current.mPosition.y) + halfWallWidth)); checkForPointCollision(acceleration,current,collisionNormal,collisionTime,Vec2( ceil(current.mPosition.x) - halfWallWidth, ceil(current.mPosition.y) - halfWallWidth)); // either if there is a collision or if there is not we step the forward since we are sure there will be no collision before collisionTime current.mPosition += collisionTime * (collisionTime * acceleration * 0.5 + current.mVelocity); current.mVelocity += collisionTime * acceleration; // if the ball collided with anything collisionNormal should be at least none zero in one of it's axis if (collisionNormal.any()) { collisionNormal *= Dot(collisionNormal, current.mVelocity) / collisionNormal.length2(); current.mVelocity -= 2 * collisionNormal; // simply reverse velocity along collision normal direction } rt -= collisionTime; } // reset all forces for current object so it'll be ready for later game event current.mForces.zero(); } }

    Read the article

  • Developing an ELO like point system for a multiplayer gaming site

    - by Alejandro Piad
    I'm currently working on a gaming site where users will submit virtual players for different games, like Chess, Nash, Backgammon, Go, etc. The idea is that users don't compete themselves, but through their virtual players. There will be leagues, tournaments, and other competition formats. The question is which would be a good rating system for users in this environment. Take into account that every user may have many different virtual players playing in many different games. As a general guideline I would like to guarantee the following properties: Users who have a lot of mediocre players should not score higher than users with a few very good players. A user with a high rating should not be penalized if he adds a new bad player, until he has had enough time to improve his player. Users who don't play often should not score higher than users who play every day. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • bug: deviation from requirements vs deviation from expectations

    - by user970696
    I am not clear on this one. No matter the terminology, in the end the software fault/bug causes (according to a lot of sources): Deviation from requirements Devation from expectations But if the expectations are not in requirements, then stakeholder could see a bug everywhere as he expected it to be like this or that..So how can I really know? I did read that specification can miss things and then of course its expected but not specified (by mistake).

    Read the article

  • I'm getting unrelated system messages in terminal?

    - by Zed
    For some reason from time to time I keep getting this weird system messages in my working terminal emulator, unrelated to anything I do.For example: [000:000] Browser XEmbed support present: 1 [000:000] Browser toolkit is Gtk2. [000:001] Using Gtk2 toolkit [000:033] Starting client channel. [000:048] Read port file, port=33359 [000:050] Initiated connection to GoogleTalkPlugin [000:154] Socket connection established [000:154] ScheduleOnlineCheck: Online check in 5000ms [000:203] Got cookie response, socket is authorized [000:203] AUTHORIZED; socket handshake complete [005:216] HandleOnlineCheck: Starting check [005:216] HandleOnlineCheck: OK; current state: 3 Failed to open VDPAU backend libvdpau_nvidia.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory After some investigation I concluded that those messages ARE from firefox.However, I didn't start Firefox from terminal. or nsBuiltinDecoderStateMachine::RunStateMachine queuing nsBuiltinDecoder::PlaybackEnded nsBuiltinDecoder::PlaybackEnded mPlayState=3 nsBuiltinDecoderStateMachine::RunStateMachine queuing nsBuiltinDecoder::PlaybackEnded nsBuiltinDecoder::PlaybackEnded mPlayState=3 I have no clue how this ends up in working terminal, any thoughts ?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic obstacles avoidance in navigation mesh system

    - by Variable
    I've built my path finding system with unreal engine, somehow the path finding part works just fine while i can't find a proper way to solve dynamic obstacles avoidance problem. My characters are walking allover the map and collide with each other while they moving. I try to steering them when collision occurs, but this doesn't work well. For example, two characters block on the road while the third one's path is right in the middle of them and he'll get stuck. Can someone tell me the most popular way of doing dynamic avoidance? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Onsite Interview : QA Engineer with more Emphasis on Java Skills

    - by coolrockers2007
    Hello I'm having a onsite interview for QA engineer with Startup. While phone interview the person said he would want to test my JAVA, JUnit and SQL skills on white board with more importance on Object-oriented skills, So what all can i questions can i expect ? One more important issue : How do i overcome the fear of White board interview ?. I'm very bad at White board sessions, i get fully tensed. Please suggest me tips to overcome my jinx

    Read the article

  • Should mock objects for tests be created at a high or low level

    - by Danack
    When creating unit tests for those other objects, what is the best way to create mock objects that provide data to other objects. Should they be created at a 'high level' and intercept the calls as soon as possible, or should they be done at a 'low level' and so make as much as the real code still be called? e.g. I'm writing a test for some code that requires a NoteMapper object that allows Notes to be loaded from the DB. class NoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { // Create an SQL query from $sqlQueryFactory // Run that SQL // if null // return null // else // return new Note($dataFromSQLQuery) } } I could either mock this object at a high level by creating a mock NoteMapper object, so that there are no calls to the SQL at all e.g. class MockNoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { //$mockData = {'Test Note title', "Test note text" } // return new Note($mockData); } } Or I could do it at a very low level, by creating a MockSQLQueryFactory that instead of actually querying the database just provides mock data back, and passing that to the current NoteMapper object. It seems that creating mocks at a high level would be easier in the short term, but that in the long term doing it at a low level would be more powerful and possibly allow more automation of tests e.g. by recording data in an out of a DB and then replaying that data for tests. Is there a recommended way of creating mocks? Are there any hard and fast rules about which are better, or should they both be used where appropriate?

    Read the article

  • Webshop for digital goods with voucher / gift card system [duplicate]

    - by Kelzama
    This question already has an answer here: Which Ecommerce Script Should I Use? 1 answer I'm searching for a webshop which provides the following: The shop offers digital goods (like mp3) User can buy a voucher / gift card @Reseller (Or there is a code provided in the CD) User can enter his code @ webshop and gets the download (unregistered) User can enter his code @ webshop and download is added to his/her library (registered) optional: Resellers can buy codes from the Webshop I already tried prestashop as it looks quite nice. But it needs a lot of custom programming (and has a very strange voucher-system). Customer has to add the File into the basket and add the voucher at checkout. I want to skip that ;) Is there a Webshop (Or CMS + Plugin) which provides the things I need? (it could also be a CMS with a Storage/Folder Plugin (like joomla + K2) and a possibility to activate downloads via unique Codes.) Any ideas are highly appreciated :) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same ruby file or in separeted ruby files?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

    Read the article

  • Mock RequireJS define dependencies with config.map

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2014/08/18/mock-requirejs-define-dependencies-with-config.map.aspxI had a module dependency, that I’m pulling down with RequireJS that I needed to use and write tests against. In this case, I don’t care about the actual implementation of the module (it’s simple enough that I’m just avoiding some AJAX calls). EDIT: make sure you look at the bottom example after the edit before using the config.map approach. I found that there is an easier way. I did not want to change the constructor of the consumer as I had a chain of changes that would have to be made and that would have been to invasive for this task. I found a question on StackOverflow with a short, but helpful answer from “Artem Oboturov”. We can use the config.map from RequireJs to achieve this. Here is some code: A module example (“usefulModule” in Common/Modules/usefulModule.js): define([], function() { "use strict"; var testMethod = function() { ... }; // add more functionality of the module return { testMethod; } }); A consumer of usefulModule example: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(usefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; // add functionality of the module } }); Using config.map in the html of the test runner page (and in your Karma config –> I’m still trying to figure this out): map: {'*': { // replace usefulModule with a mock 'Common/Modules/usefulModule': '/Tests/Specs/Common/usefulModuleMock.js' } } With the new mapping, Require will load usefulModuleMock.js from Tests/Specs/Common instead of the real implementation. Some of the answers on StackOverflow mentioned Squire.js, which looked interesting, but I wasn’t ready to introduce a new library at this time. That’s all you need to be able to mock a depency in RequireJS. However, there are many good cases when you should pass it in through the constructor instead of this approach.   EDIT: After all that, here’s another, probably better way: The consumer class, updated: define([ "Commmon/Modules/usefulModule" ], function(UsefulModule) { "use strict"; var consumerModule = function(){ var self = this; self.usefulModule = new UsefulModule(); // add functionality of the module } }); Jasmine test: define([ "consumerModule", "/UnitTests/Specs/Common/Mocks/usefulModuleMock.js" ], function(consumerModule, UsefulModuleMock){ describe("when mocking out the module", function(){ it("should probably just override the property", function(){ var consumer = new consumerModule(); consumer.usefulModule = new UsefulModuleMock(); }); }); });   Thanks for letting me think out loud :-).

    Read the article

  • How to handle bugs that I think I fixed, but I'm not entirely sure

    - by vsz
    There are some types of bugs which are very hard to reproduce, happen very rarely and seemingly by random. It can happen, that I find a possible cause, fix it, test the program, and can't reproduce the bug. However, as it was impossible to reliably reproduce the bug and it happened so rarely, how can I indicate this in a bugtracker? What is the common way of doing it? If I set the status to fixed, and the solution to fixed, it would mean something completely fixed, wouldn't it? Is it common practice to set the status to fixed and the solution to open, to indicate to the testers, that "it's probably fixed, but needs more attention to make sure" ? Edit: most (if not all) bugtrackers have two properties for the status of a bug, maybe the names are not the same. By status I mean new, assigned, fixed, closed, etc., and by solution I mean open (new), fixed, unsolvable, not reproducible, duplicate, not a bug, etc.

    Read the article

  • Testcase runner for parametrized testcases

    - by Razer
    Let me explain my situation. I'm planning a kind of test case runner for doing testcases on external devices, which are microcontroller based. Lets consider the devices: Device 1 Device 2 There exist a lot of test cases which can be run with one of the devices above. For example: Testcase 1 Testcase 2 The main reason that all the testcases can be run with any device is, that the testcases validates some standard and this software should be extensible for future devices. The testcases itself must be runnable with changing parameters. For example Testcase 1 does some Timing Verification the testcase needs as input parameter the datarate: 4800, 9600, 19200. Now hoping you understand the situation, let me explain my design questions. For implementing the test cases I thought about an Attribute based approach, like nunit does it. The more complicated problem is, how to define the parametrized testcases? Like this: Device 1: Testcase 1: datarate: 4800, 9600, 19200 Testcase 2: supply: 1, 2, 3 Device 2: Testcase 1: datarate: 9600, 19200, 38400 Testcase 2: supply: 3, 4, 5 How would you design such a framework? I've done a similar desin in python where I had for every device a XML containing the testcase definitions like: <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=4800/> <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=9600/> <Testcase="Testcase 1" datarate=19200/>

    Read the article

  • Scrum for Team System v3 RTM available

    - by Enrique Lima
    If you are using the Scrum for Team System (aka Conchango Scrum Template), it has hit RTM and it is available for download.  First you will need to register and then you will ne able to access the goods. There is also a very well laid out Getting Started with v3 guide, put together by Crispin Parker. Note:  Very important to know and consider, is the fact there is no upgrade or migration strategy laid out from v2.2.  So you are left to your own devices on that one.  There are plenty of discussions going on as far as making it happen.  Don’t get me wrong v2.2 work items will be present and you will be able to use them, just don’t expect the v3 template to trigger when  adding new work items. For now, get TFS in place, install the template and start fresh.  The Workbench should be released soon too, and that makes it a great component to this solution.

    Read the article

  • Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

    - by Winston Ewert
    One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

    Read the article

  • HD video editing system with Truecrypt

    - by Rob
    I'm looking to do hi-def video editing and transcoding on an unencrypted standard partition, with Truecrypt on the system partition for sensitive data. I'm aiming to keep certain data private but still have performance where needed. Goals: Maximum, unimpacted, performance possible for hi-def video editing, encryption of video not required Encrypt system partition, using Truecrypt, for web/email privacy, etc. in the event of loss In other words I want to selectively encrypt the hard drive - i.e. make the system partition encrypted but not impact the original maximum performance that would be available to me for hi-def/HD video editing. The thinking is to use an unencrypted partition for the video and set up video applications to point at that. Assuming that they would use that partition only for their workspace and not the encrypted system partition, then I should expect to not get any performance hit. Would I be correct? I guess it might depend on the application, if that app is hard-wired to use the system partition always for temporary storage during editing and transcoding, or if it has to be installed on the C: system partition always. So some real data on how various apps behave in the respect would be useful, e.g. Adobe, Cyberlink, Nero etc. etc. I have a Intel i7 Quad-core (8 threads) 1.6Ghz (up to 2.8Ghz turbo-boost) 4Gb, 7200rpm SATA, nvidia HP laptop. I've read the excellent posting about the general performance impact of truecrypt but the benchmarks weren't specific enough for my needs where I'm dealing with HD-video and using a non-encrypted partition to maintain max performance.

    Read the article

  • "Waiting for Sound System to respond." error dialog

    - by Paulo Truta
    Hello guys. I'm having a nasty problem with the Sound Menu on my Ubuntu 10.10 Installation. What happens is that the sound control icon is blocked, and i can't control the master volume. If i try to get to the Sound Preferences i get a little Pop-Up Window saying: "Waiting for Sound System to respond...". Don't know what to do... Apart of that, sound works great. Thanks a lot ;) PS: I made 2 screenshot uploads. Hope it helps.

    Read the article

  • What are the processes of true Quality assurance?

    - by user970696
    Having read that Quality Assurance (QA) is focused on processes (while Quality Control (QC) is focused on the product), the books often mentions QA is the verification process - doing peer reviews, inspections etc. I still tend to think these are also QC as they check intermediate products. Elsewhere I have read that QA activity is e.g. choosing the right bugtracker. That sounds better to me in terms of process improvement. The question that close-voting person obviously missed is pretty clear: What are the activities that true QA should perform? I would appreciate the reference as I work on my thesis dealing with all these discrepancies and inconsistencies in the software quality world.

    Read the article

  • Mail Scanning System

    - by Mr D
    In the same way gmail can generate ads based on email content, I am looking for a way to develop a system which can: Allow users to connect their email address to our site It then would continously monitor all incomming emails From the incomming emails there would be a critera(e.g. a certain address or subject) if any of the emails matched the critea it would would be saved to a database Then once a new email had been found the users would receive an email notification will tells them to log back into the site to see it. My questions are: Would this be possible? What would be a good language to use(generally I like php, python and java) Are there any frameworks which would help do this? How would I connect the users email account to allow access to their emails(do I need a mail server?) Any advice? Thank you! If you need more information please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Registration free hosting for ASP.NET web service

    - by Andrew
    I've built a simple ASP.NET web service, tested it locally and would like to test it when externally hosted. Are there free hosting services available where I can just upload the assembly and service description file and test it straight away. Without registering the account, etc. My service does not do anything malicious and I am ok to run it in a restricted (security sandbox, bandwith, calls per second, etc) environment? I have heard about appharbor.com but it looks like an overkill to test a simple web service.

    Read the article

  • Do you test your SQL/HQL/Criteria ?

    - by 0101
    Do you test your SQL or SQL generated by your database framework? There are frameworks like DbUnit that allow you to create real in-memory database and execute real SQL. But its very hard to use(not developer-friendly so to speak), because you need to first prepare test data(and it should not be shared between tests). P.S. I don't mean mocking database or framework's database methods, but tests that make you 99% sure that your SQL is working even after some hardcore refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Verification of requirements question

    - by user970696
    Doing a lot of reading about V&V, I would need to clarify the following. A lot of definitons (less formal ones found in books) define verification like that: Verification: The software should conform to its specification. But then they speak about requirement verification, design verification etc. If I say that these items are "software" in terms of applying the definitons, what should I checked them against, what specification should requirements, which is the basic information, conform to? And one more thing: shouldnt be requirements also validated? To make sure they meets the customer needs? All texts I have speak only about SW validation on the end of the dev.process..

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >