Search Results

Search found 36 results on 2 pages for 'cop'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • Javascript jQuery .click() callback references local variable from the calling method instead of cop

    - by Eric Freese
    The following jQuery Javascript code is included on an otherwise empty page. $(function() { for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) { element = $('<div>' + i + '</div>'); element.click(function() { alert(i); }); $('body').append(element); } }); The desired behavior is that this code should generate 10 div elements numbered from 0 to 9. When you click on a div element, an alert popup will show the number of the div element you clicked on (i.e. if a user clicks on the div element labeled '4', the alert popup should show the number 4). The alert popup instead shows the number 10 regardless of which div element is clicked on. How can I modify this code to make it behave in the desired way?

    Read the article

  • Anybody using Qi4J

    - by Jon
    I was reading an InfoQ article on Composite Oriented Programming earlier on: http://www.infoq.com/articles/Composite-Programming-Qi4j I was interested in finding out whether anybody is currently using (or has used) the Qi4j framework at all? How does it compares to using a traditional dependency injection framework such as Spring for wiring classes together. Is the resulting object graph (based on mixins rather than classes) easier to deal with from a maintenance point of view?

    Read the article

  • How to implement line of sight restriction in actionscript?

    - by Michiel Standaert
    I have a problem with a game i am programming. I am making some sort of security game and i would like to have some visual line of sight. The problem is that i can't restrict my line of sight so my cops can't see through the walls. Below you find the design, in which they can look through windows, but not walls. Further below you find an illustration of what my problem is exactly. this is what it looks like now. As you can see, the cops can see through walls. This is the map i would want to use to restrict the line of sight. So the way i am programming the line of sight now is just by calculating some points and drawing the sight accordingly, as shown below. Note that i also check for a hittest using bitmapdata to check whether or not my player has been spotted by any of the cops. private function setSight(e:Event=null):Boolean { g = copCanvas.graphics; g.clear(); for each(var cop:Cop in copCanvas.getChildren()) { var _angle:Number = cop.angle; var _radians:Number = (_angle * Math.PI) / 180; var _radius:Number = 50; var _x1:Number = cop.x + (cop.width/2); var _y1:Number = cop.y + (cop.height/2); var _baseX:Number = _x1 + (Math.cos(_radians) * _radius); var _baseY:Number = _y1 - (Math.sin(_radians) * _radius); var _x2:Number = _baseX + (25 * Math.sin(_radians)); var _y2:Number = _baseY + (25 * Math.cos(_radians)); var _x3:Number = _baseX - (25 * Math.sin(_radians)); var _y3:Number = _baseY - (25 * Math.cos(_radians)); g.beginFill(0xff0000, 0.3); g.moveTo(_x1, _y1); g.lineTo(_x2, _y2); g.lineTo(_x3, _y3); g.endFill(); } var _cops:BitmapData = new BitmapData(width, height, true, 0); _cops.draw(copCanvas); var _bmpd:BitmapData = new BitmapData(10, 10, true, 0); _bmpd.draw(me); if(_cops.hitTest(new Point(0, 0), 10, _bmpd, new Point(me.x, me.y), 255)) { gameover.alpha = 1; setTimeout(function():void{ gameover.alpha = 0; }, 5000); stop(); return true; } return false; } So now my question is: Is there someone who knows how to restrict the view so that the cops can't look through the walls? Thanks a lot in advance. ps: i have already looked at this tutorial by emanuele feronato, but i can't use the code to restric the visual line of sight.

    Read the article

  • How to merge an improperly created "branch" that isn't really a branch (wasn't created by an svn cop

    - by MatrixFrog
    I'm working on a team with lots of people who are pretty unfamiliar with the concepts of version control systems, and are just kind of doing whatever seems to work, by trial and error. Someone created a "branch" from the trunk that is not ancestrally related to the trunk. My guess is it went something like this: They created a folder in branches. They checked out all the code from the trunk to somewhere on their desktop. They added all that code to the newly created folder as though it was a bunch of brand new files. So the repository isn't aware that all that code is actually just a copy of the trunk. When I look at the history of that branch in TortoiseSVN, and uncheck the "Stop on copy/rename" box, there is no revision that has the trunk (or any other path) under the "Copy from path" column. Then they made lots of changes on their "branch". Meanwhile, others were making lots of changes on the trunk. We tried to do a merge and of course it doesn't work. Because, the trunk and the fake branch are not ancestrally related. I can see only two ways to resolve this: Go through the logs on the "branch", look at every change that was made, and manually apply each change to the trunk. Go through the logs on the trunk, look at every change that was made between revision 540 (when the "branch" was created) and HEAD, and manually apply each change to the "branch". This involves 7 revisions one way or 11 revisions the other way, so neither one is really that terrible. But is there any way to cause the repository to "realize" that the branch really IS ancestrally related even though it was created incorrectly, so that we can take advantage of the built-in merging functionality in Eclipse/TortoiseSVN? (You may be wondering: Why did your company hire these people and allow them to access the SVN repository without making sure they knew how to use it properly first?! We didn't -- this is a school assignment, which is a collaboration between two different classes -- the ones in the lower class were given a very quick hand-wavey "overview" of SVN which didn't really teach them anything. I've asked everyone in the group to please PLEASE read the svn book, and I'll make sure we (the slightly more experienced half of the team) keep a close eye on the repository to ensure this doesn't happen again.)

    Read the article

  • Wrapping FUSE from Go

    - by Matt Joiner
    I'm playing around with wrapping FUSE with Go. However I've come stuck with how to deal with struct fuse_operations. I can't seem to expose the operations struct by declaring type Operations C.struct_fuse_operations as the members are lower case, and my pure-Go sources would have to use C-hackery to set the members anyway. My first error in this case is "can't set getattr" in what looks to be the Go equivalent of a default copy constructor. My next attempt is to expose an interface that expects GetAttr, ReadLink etc, and then generate C.struct_fuse_operations and bind the function pointers to closures that call the given interface. This is what I've got (explanation continues after code): package fuse // #include <fuse.h> // #include <stdlib.h> import "C" import ( //"fmt" "os" "unsafe" ) type Operations interface { GetAttr(string, *os.FileInfo) int } func Main(args []string, ops Operations) int { argv := make([]*C.char, len(args) + 1) for i, s := range args { p := C.CString(s) defer C.free(unsafe.Pointer(p)) argv[i] = p } cop := new(C.struct_fuse_operations) cop.getattr = func(*C.char, *C.struct_stat) int {} argc := C.int(len(args)) return int(C.fuse_main_real(argc, &argv[0], cop, C.size_t(unsafe.Sizeof(cop)), nil)) } package main import ( "fmt" "fuse" "os" ) type CpfsOps struct { a int } func (me *CpfsOps) GetAttr(string, *os.FileInfo) int { return -1; } func main() { fmt.Println(os.Args) ops := &CpfsOps{} fmt.Println("fuse main returned", fuse.Main(os.Args, ops)) } This gives the following error: fuse.go:21[fuse.cgo1.go:23]: cannot use func literal (type func(*_Ctype_char, *_Ctype_struct_stat) int) as type *[0]uint8 in assignment I'm not sure what to pass to these members of C.struct_fuse_operations, and I've seen mention in a few places it's not possible to call from C back into Go code. If it is possible, what should I do? How can I provide the "default" values for interface functions that acts as though the corresponding C.struct_fuse_operations member is set to NULL?

    Read the article

  • From the Coal Face - StyleCop 4.4.0

    - by TATWORTH
    Style Cop 4.4.0 is now out. This is a free download from http://stylecop.codeplex.com/ (please note the new location). This version is for VS2010. If you are usign an older version of Visual Studio you be prepared to keep to an older release like 4.3.0. The more I use StyleCop the more I like it. Code that is style cop compliant is much easier to pick up. It helps if you have GhostDoc (free) and Resharper (from jetBrains.Com)

    Read the article

  • Yahoo search: different results shown in two identical searches

    - by Marco Demaio
    Hello,simple question: searching on http://www.yahoo.it for villa matrimonio bologna I noticed Yahoo shows different results. You need to retry few times to get this done maybe exiting the browser and openeing it again, or maybe searching once and then clearing browser cookies and then search again (it's even easier to test if you use two different browsers at the same time to search for the same phrase). Anyway in order to reproduce this easily I write down here the query shown in the address bar after the search, so you can just click on these to see the results shown by entering these query: http://it.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AirvLYKvBMPP_6MpAmONN14brK5_?vc=&p=villa+matrimonio+bologna&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-709 http://it.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AirvLYKvBMPP_6MpAmONN14brK5_?vc=&p=villa+matrimonio+bologna&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp Note the last parameter fr is different, but it's Yahoo that set it (not me), I don't even know what it means. You can see in the search box that the searched phrase is IDENTICAL in both cases. So why Yahoo is giving out different results on same search phrase? I used the same browser and performed the test in few minutes by simply trying more than once. You may also notice that the number of results returned (written on the left side of the page) is different, for the 1st search it returns 274K results, for the 2nd one 5.38M results. Actually you might think that this is just an error on Yahoo, but it's almost 1 year that while looking once in a while at some websites to see how they are ranking on Yahoo and also Google, I noticed that two searches on the same phrase show up different results even on the same day after few minutes/hours. I couldn't reproduce this behaviour also on Google so I can not say for sure, but since it seems to me it happened sometimes I was wondering if anyone of you noticed it too. Do you know if this is the normal behaviour of search engines? Because if it's normal (and it's just me that noticed it only now) I wonder how do you understand how well a site is ranking on a search engine, you could even see one of your customer's website ranking differently compared to what your customer sees on his PC.

    Read the article

  • VS 2012 Code Review &ndash; Before Check In OR After Check In?

    - by Tarun Arora
    “Is Code Review Important and Effective?” There is a consensus across the industry that code review is an effective and practical way to collar code inconsistency and possible defects early in the software development life cycle. Among others some of the advantages of code reviews are, Bugs are found faster Forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation or introduction!) Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster Programmers as specialists "evolve" faster It's fun “Code review is systematic examination (often known as peer review) of computer source code. It is intended to find and fix mistakes overlooked in the initial development phase, improving both the overall quality of software and the developers' skills. Reviews are done in various forms such as pair programming, informal walkthroughs, and formal inspections.” Wikipedia No where does the definition mention whether its better to review code before the code has been committed to version control or after the commit has been performed. No matter which side you favour, Visual Studio 2012 allows you to request for a code review both before check in and also request for a review after check in. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of the approaches independently. Code Review Before Check In or Code Review After Check In? Approach 1 – Code Review before Check in Developer completes the code and feels the code quality is appropriate for check in to TFS. The developer raises a code review request to have a second pair of eyes validate if the code abides to the recommended best practices, will not result in any defects due to common coding mistakes and whether any optimizations can be made to improve the code quality.                                             Image 1 – code review before check in Pros Everything that gets committed to source control is reviewed. Minimizes the chances of smelly code making its way into the code base. Decreases the cost of fixing bugs, remember, the earlier you find them, the lesser the pain in fixing them. Cons Development Code Freeze – Since the changes aren’t in the source control yet. Further development can only be done off-line. The changes have not been through a CI build, hard to say whether the code abides to all build quality standards. Inconsistent! Cumbersome to track the actual code review process.  Not every change to the code base is worth reviewing, a lot of effort is invested for very little gain. Approach 2 – Code Review after Check in Developer checks in, random code reviews are performed on the checked in code.                                                      Image 2 – Code review after check in Pros The code has already passed the CI build and run through any code analysis plug ins you may have running on the build server. Instruct the developer to ensure ZERO fx cop, style cop and static code analysis before check in. Code is cleaner and smell free even before the code review. No Offline development, developers can continue to develop against the source control. Cons Bad code can easily make its way into the code base. Since the review take place much later in the cycle, the cost of fixing issues can prove to be much higher. Approach 3 – Hybrid Approach The community advocates a more hybrid approach, a blend of tooling and human accountability quotient.                                                               Image 3 – Hybrid Approach 1. Code review high impact check ins. It is not possible to review everything, by setting up code review check in policies you can end up slowing your team. More over, the code that you are reviewing before check in hasn't even been through a green CI build either. 2. Tooling. Let the tooling work for you. By running static analysis, fx cop, style cop and other plug ins on the build agent, you can identify the real issues that in my opinion can't possibly be identified using human reviews. Configure the tooling to report back top 10 issues every day. Mandate the manual code review of individuals who keep making it to this list of shame more often. 3. During Merge. I would prefer eliminating some of the other code issues during merge from Main branch to the release branch. In a scrum project this is still easier because cheery picking the merges is a possibility and the size of code being reviewed is still limited. Let the tooling work for you, if some one breaks the CI build often, put them on a gated check in build course until you see improvement. If some one appears on the top 10 list of shame generated via the build then ensure that all their code is reviewed till you see improvement. At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the code being delivered is top quality. By enforcing a code review before any check in, you force the developer to work offline or stay put till the review is complete. What do the experts say? So I asked a few expects what they thought of “Code Review quality gate before Checking in code?" Terje Sandstrom | Microsoft ALM MVP You mean a review quality gate BEFORE checking in code????? That would mean a lot of code staying either local or in shelvesets, and not even been through a CI build, and a green CI build being the main criteria for going further, f.e. to the review state. I would not like code laying around with no checkin’s. Having a requirement that code is checked in small pieces, 4-8 hours work max, and AT LEAST daily checkins, a manual code review comes second down the lane. I would expect review quality gates to happen before merging back to main, or before merging to release.  But that would all be on checked-in code.  Branching is absolutely one way to ease the pain.   Another way we are using is automatic quality builds, running metrics, coverage, static code analysis.  Unfortunately it takes some time, would be great to be on CI’s – but…., so it’s done scheduled every night. Based on this we get, among other stuff,  top 10 lists of suspicious code, which is then subjected to reviews.  If a person seems to be very popular on these top 10 lists, we subject every check in from that person to a review for a period. That normally helps.   None of the clients I have can afford to have every checkin reviewed, so we need to find ways around it. I don’t disagree with the nicety of having all the code reviewed, but I find it hard to find those resources in today’s enterprises. David V. Corbin | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I tend to agree with both sides. I hate having code that is not checked in, but at the same time hate having “bad” code in the repository. I have found that branching is one approach to solving this dilemma. Code is checked into the private/feature branch before the review, but is not merged over to the “official” branch until after the review. I advocate both, depending on circumstance (especially team dynamics)   - The “pre-checkin” is usually for elements that may impact the project as a whole. Think of it as another “gate” along with passing unit tests. - The “post-checkin” may very well not be at the changeset level, but correlates to a review at the “user story” level.   Again, this depends on team dynamics in play…. Robert MacLean | Microsoft ALM MVP I do not think there is no right answer for the industry as a whole. In short the question is why do you do reviews? Your question implies risk mitigation, so in low risk areas you can get away with it after check in while in high risk you need to do it before check in. An example is those new to a team or juniors need it much earlier (maybe that is before checkin, maybe that is soon after) than seniors who have shipped twenty sprints on the team. Abhimanyu Singhal | Visual Studio ALM Ranger Depends on per scenario basis. We recommend post check-in reviews when: 1. We don't want to block other checks and processes on manual code reviews. Manual reviews take time, and some pieces may not require manual reviews at all. 2. We need to trace all changes and track history. 3. We have a code promotion strategy/process in place. For risk mitigation, post checkin code can be promoted to Accepted branches. Or can be rejected. Pre Checkin Reviews are used when 1. There is a high risk factor associated 2. Reviewers are generally (most of times) have immediate availability. 3. Team does not have strict tracking needs. Simply speaking, no single process fits all scenarios. You need to select what works best for your team/project. Thomas Schissler | Visual Studio ALM Ranger This is an interesting discussion, I’m right now discussing details about executing code reviews with my teams. I see and understand the aspects you brought in, but there is another side as well, I’d like to point out. 1.) If you do reviews per check in this is not very practical as a hard rule because this will disturb the flow of the team very often or it will lead to reduce the checkin frequency of the devs which I would not accept. 2.) If you do later reviews, for example if you review PBIs, it is not easy to find out which code you should review. Either you review all changesets associate with the PBI, but then you might review code which has been changed with a later checkin and the dev maybe has already fixed the issue. Or you review the diff of the latest changeset of the PBI with the first but then you might also review changes of other PBIs. Jakob Leander | Sr. Director, Avanade In my experience, manual code review: 1. Does not get done and at the very least does not get redone after changes (regardless of intentions at start of project) 2. When a project actually do it, they often do not do it right away = errors pile up 3. Requires a lot of time discussing/defining the standard and for the team to learn it However code review is very important since e.g. even small memory leaks in a high volume web solution have big consequences In the last years I have advocated following approach for code review - Architects up front do “at least one best practice example” of each type of component and tell the team. Copy from this one. This should include error handling, logging, security etc. - Dev lead on project continuously browse code to validate that the best practices are used. Especially that patterns etc. are not broken. You can do this formally after each sprint/iteration if you want. Once this is validated it is unlikely to “go bad” even during later code changes Agree with customer to rely on static code analysis from Visual Studio as the one and only coding standard. This has HUUGE benefits - You can easily tweak to reach the level you desire together with customer - It is easy to measure for both developers/management - It is 100% consistent across code base - It gets validated all the time so you never end up getting hammered by a customer review in the end - It is easy to tell the developer that you do not want code back unless it has zero errors = minimize communication You need to track this at least during nightly builds and make sure team sees total # issues. Do not allow #issues it to grow uncontrolled. On the project I run I require code analysis to have run on code before checkin (checkin rule). This means -  You have to have clean compile (or CA wont run) so this is extra benefit = very few broken builds - You can change a few of the rules to compile as errors instead of warnings. I often do this for “missing dispose” issues which you REALLY do not want in your app Tip: Place your custom CA rules files as part of solution. That  way it works when you do branching etc. (path to CA file is relative in VS) Some may argue that CA is not as good as manual inspection. But since manual inspection in reality suffers from the 3 issues in start it is IMO a MUCH better (and much cheaper) approach from helicopter perspective Tirthankar Dutta | Director, Avanade I think code review should be run both before and after check ins. There are some code metrics that are meant to be run on the entire codebase … Also, especially on multi-site projects, one should strive to architect in a way that lets men manage the framework while boys write the repetitive code… scales very well with the need to review less by containment and imposing architectural restrictions to emphasise the design. Bruno Capuano | Microsoft ALM MVP For code reviews (means peer reviews) in distributed team I use http://www.vsanywhere.com/default.aspx  David Jobling | Global Sr. Director, Avanade Peer review is the only way to scale and its a great practice for all in the team to learn to perform and accept. In my experience you soon learn who's code to watch more than others and tune the attention. Mikkel Toudal Kristiansen | Manager, Avanade If you have several branches in your code base, you will need to merge often. This requires manual merging, when a file has been changed in both branches. It offers a good opportunity to actually review to changed code. So my advice is: Merging between branches should be done as often as possible, it should be done by a senior developer, and he/she should perform a full code review of the code being merged. As for detecting architectural smells and code smells creeping into the code base, one really good third party tools exist: Ndepend (http://www.ndepend.com/, for static code analysis of the current state of the code base). You could also consider adding StyleCop to the solution. Jesse Houwing | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I gave a presentation on this subject on the TechDays conference in NL last year. See my presentation and slides here (talk in Dutch, but English presentation): http://blog.jessehouwing.nl/2012/03/did-you-miss-my-techdaysnl-talk-on-code.html  I’d like to add a few more points: - Before/After checking is mostly a trust issue. If you have a team that does diligent peer reviews and regularly talk/sit together or peer review, there’s no need to enforce a before-checkin policy. The peer peer-programming and regular feedback during development can take care of most of the review requirements as long as the team isn’t under stress. - Under stress, enforce pre-checkin reviews, it might sound strange, if you’re already under time or budgetary constraints, but it is under such conditions most real issues start to be created or pile up. - Use tools to catch most common errors, Code Analysis/FxCop was already mentioned. HP Fortify, Resharper, Coderush etc can help you there. There are also a lot of 3rd party rules you can add to Code Analysis. I’ve written a few myself (http://fccopcontrib.codeplex.com) and various teams from Microsoft have added their own rules (MSOCAF for SharePoint, WSSF for WCF). For common errors that keep cropping up, see if you can define a rule. It’s much easier. But more importantly make sure you have a good help page explaining *WHY* it's wrong. If you have small feature or developer branches/shelvesets, you might want to review pre-merge. It’s still better to do peer reviews and peer programming, but the most important thing is that bad quality code doesn’t make it into the important branch. So my philosophy: - Use tooling as much as possible. - Make sure the team understands the tooling and the importance of the things it flags. It’s too easy to just click suppress all to ignore the warnings. - Under stress, tighten process, it’s under stress that the problems of late reviews will really surface - Most importantly if you do reviews do them as early as possible, but never later than needed. In other words, pre-checkin/post checking doesn’t really matter, as long as the review is done before the code is released. It’ll just be much more expensive to fix any review outcomes the later you find them. --- I would love to hear what you think!

    Read the article

  • From 20,663 issues to 1 issue&ndash;style-copping C5.Tests

    - by TATWORTH
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TATWORTH/archive/2014/05/28/from-20663-issues-to-1-issuendashstyle-copping-c5.tests.aspxI recently became interested in the potential of the C5 Collections solution from http://www.itu.dk/research/c5/, however I was dismayed at the state of the code in the unit test project, so I set about fixing the 20,663 issues detected by StyleCop. The tools I used were the latest versions of: My 64-bit development PC running Windows 8 Update with 8Gb RAM Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate with SP2 ReSharper GhostDoc Pro My first attempt had to be abandoned due to collision of class names which broke one of the unit tests. So being aware of this duplication of class names, I started again and planned to prepend the class names with the namespace name. In some cases I additionally prepended the item of the C5 collection that was being tested. So what was the condition of code at the start? Besides the sprawl of C# code not written to style cop standard, there was: 1) Placing of many classes within one physical file. 2) Namespace within name space that did not follow the project structure. 3) As already mentioned, duplication of class names across namespaces. 4) A copyright notice that spawled but had to be preserved. 5) Project sub-folders were all lower case instead of initial letter capitalised. The first step was to add a stylecop heading plus the original heading contained within a region, to every file. The next step was to run GhostDoc Pro using its “Document File” option on every file but not letting it replace the headers, I had added. This brought the number of issues down to 18,192. I then went through each file collapsing each class and prepending names as appropriate. At each step, I saved the changes to my local Git. The step was to move each class to its own file and to style-cop each file. ReSharper provides a very useful feature for doing this which also fixes missing “this.” and moves using statements inside the namespace. Some classes required minimal work whereas others required extensive work to reach the stylecop standard. The unit tests were run at each split and when each class was completed. When all was done, one issue remained which I will need to submit to stylecop team for their advice (and possibly a fix to stylecop). The updated solution has been made available at https://c5stylecopped.codeplex.com/releases/view/122785.

    Read the article

  • Java 2D Resize

    - by jon077
    I have some old Java 2D code I want to reuse, but was wondering, is this the best way to get the highest quality images? public static BufferedImage getScaled(BufferedImage imgSrc, Dimension dim) { // This code ensures that all the pixels in the image are loaded. Image scaled = imgSrc.getScaledInstance( dim.width, dim.height, Image.SCALE_SMOOTH); // This code ensures that all the pixels in the image are loaded. Image temp = new ImageIcon(scaled).getImage(); // Create the buffered image. BufferedImage bufferedImage = new BufferedImage(temp.getWidth(null), temp.getHeight(null), BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB); // Copy image to buffered image. Graphics g = bufferedImage.createGraphics(); // Clear background and paint the image. g.setColor(Color.white); g.fillRect(0, 0, temp.getWidth(null),temp.getHeight(null)); g.drawImage(temp, 0, 0, null); g.dispose(); // j2d's image scaling quality is rather poor, especially when // scaling down an image to a much smaller size. We'll post filter // our images using a trick found at // http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/archives/003584.html // to increase the perceived quality.... float origArea = imgSrc.getWidth() * imgSrc.getHeight(); float newArea = dim.width * dim.height; if (newArea <= (origArea / 2.)) { bufferedImage = blurImg(bufferedImage); } return bufferedImage; } public static BufferedImage blurImg(BufferedImage src) { // soften factor - increase to increase blur strength float softenFactor = 0.010f; // convolution kernel (blur) float[] softenArray = { 0, softenFactor, 0, softenFactor, 1-(softenFactor*4), softenFactor, 0, softenFactor, 0}; Kernel kernel = new Kernel(3, 3, softenArray); ConvolveOp cOp = new ConvolveOp(kernel, ConvolveOp.EDGE_NO_OP, null); return cOp.filter(src, null); }

    Read the article

  • Selecting a Color Selector

    - by RCIX
    I'm looking for a nice full featured color selector program, i currently use Color Cop but i feel its missing some features (mainly a nice interface for selecting a color from a spectrum). Does anyone have any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Initial review of Developer's Guide to Collections in Microsoft® .NET

    - by TATWORTH
    The code is well illustrated by diagrams. The approach is practical. The code is well commented, however the C# code samples would be better had they been fully Style Cop compliant. I am looking forward to reviewing the rest of this excellent book. I recommend this book to all C# and VB.NET Development teams. I concur with the author who states that the book is not for learning C# or VB.NET. It is an excellent book for C# or VB.NET developers to extend their knowledge of the Dot Net framework. To buy a copy, please go to http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0790145317193.do

    Read the article

  • O' Reilly Deal of the Day 26/Jun/2012 - Developer's Guide to Collections in Microsoft® .NET

    - by TATWORTH
    Today's 50% off Deal of the Day at http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0790145317193.do?code=MSDEAL is Developer's Guide to Collections in Microsoft® .NET "Put .NET collections to work—and manage issues with GUI data binding, threading, data querying, and storage. Led by a data collection expert, you'll gain task-oriented guidance, exercises, and extensive code samples to tackle common problems and improve application performance. This one-stop reference is designed for experienced Microsoft Visual Basic® and C# developers—whether you’re already using collections or just starting out." I am reviewing this book. Here are my initial comments:The code is well illustrated by diagrams. The approach is practical. The code is well commented, however the C# code samples would be better had they been fully Style Cop compliant.I recommend this book to all C# and VB.NET Development teams. I concur with the author who states that the book is not for learning C# or VB.NET, however it is an excellent book for C# or VB.NET developers to extend their knowledge of the Dot Net framework.

    Read the article

  • Stylecop 4.5.20.0 is available

    - by TATWORTH
    Stylecop 4.5.20.0 is available is available at http://stylecop.codeplex.com/releases/view/62209 This is the StyleCop 4.5 RC8. "This release includes the very latest StyleCop for ReSharper plugin and will automatically uninstall previous versions of StyleCop. This updated release contains around 200 bug fixes since the 4.4 RTW release and includes 5 new rules. Support for the async CTP is also added. SA1125 - UseShorthandForNullableTypes SA1411 - AttributeConstructorMustNotUseUnnecessaryParenthesis SA1517 - CodeMustNotContainBlankLinesAtStartOfFile SA1518 - CodeMustNotContainBlankLinesAtEndOfFile SA1649 - FileHeaderFileNameDocumentationMustMatchTypeName" StyleCop / Resharper 5.0 integration continues to improve. If you have not yet used them in your C# development, I urge you to try them out. I have found StyleCop 4.5 RC8 (and its RC predecessors) to be stable. Making changes to the code to make it style cop compliant is now very much easier. Can't code withoutThe best C# & VB.NET refactoring plugin for Visual Studio

    Read the article

  • Writing selenium tests, should I just get it done or get it right?

    - by Peter Smith
    I'm attempting to drive my user interface (heavy on javascript) through selenium. I've already tested the rest of my ajax interaction with selenium successfully. However, this one particular method seems to be eluding me because I can't seem to fake the correct click event. I could solve this problem by simply waiting in the test for the user to click a point and then continuing with the test but this seems like a cop out. But I'm really running out of time on my deadline to have this done and working. Should I just get this done and move on or should I spend the extra (unknown) amount of time to fix this problem and be able to have my selenium tests 100% automated?

    Read the article

  • Exporting dates properly formatted on Google Appengine in Python

    - by Chris M
    I think this is right but google appengine seems to get to a certain point and cop-out; Firstly is this code actually right; and secondly is there away to skip the record if it cant output (like an ignore errors and continue)? class TrackerExporter(bulkloader.Exporter): def __init__(self): bulkloader.Exporter.__init__(self, 'SearchRec', [('__key__', lambda key:key.name(), None), ('WebSite', str, None), ('DateStamp', lambda x: datetime.datetime.strptime(x, '%d-%m-%Y').date(), None), ('IP', str, None), ('UserAgent', str, None)]) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Are there localization tools which spot content strings in xaml/wpf?

    - by Noel Kennedy
    When globalizing a wpf application with static resx classes, it's very easy to miss the odd label or button that has its Content property set to a hard coded string in a particular language, ie English. These should of course be moved off to a {x:Static ...} so they can be localised for each culture. Are there any tools which can spot this and warn you? Built in to VS would be ideal, but I'm thinking that 'style cop' type build tools would do the job as well.

    Read the article

  • You Say You Want a (Customer Experience) Revolution

    - by Christie Flanagan
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} rev-o-lu-tion [rev-uh-loo-shuhn] noun 1. a sudden, radical or complete change 2. fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something; a change of paradigm 3. a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> Lately, I've been hearing an awful lot about the customer experience revolution.  Tonight Oracle will be hosting The Experience Revolution, an evening of exploration and networking with customer experience executives in New York City where Oracle President Mark Hurd will introduce Oracle Customer Experience, a cross-stack suite of customer experience products that includes Oracle WebCenter and a number of other Oracle technologies. Then on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Forrester Customer Experience Forum East also kicks off in New York City where they'll examine how businesses can "reap the full business benefits of the customer experience revolution." So, are we in the midst of a customer experience revolution? As a consumer, I can answer that question with a definitive “yes.” When I bought my very first car, I had a lot of questions. How do I know if I’m paying a fair price? How do I know if this dealer is honest? Why do I have to sit through these good cop, bad cop shenanigans between sales and sales management at the dealership? Why do I feel like I’m doing these people a favor by giving them my business? In the end the whole experience left me feeling deeply unsatisfied. I didn’t feel that I held all that much power over the experience and the only real negotiating trick I had was to walk out, which I did, many times before actually making a purchase. Fast forward to a year ago and I found myself back in the market for a new car. The very first car that I bought had finally kicked the bucket after many years, many repair bills, and much wear and tear. Man, I had loved that car. It was time to move on, but I had a knot in my stomach when I reflected back on my last car purchase experience and dreaded the thought of going through that again. Could that have been the reason why I drove my old car for so long? But as I started the process of researching new cars, I started to feel really confident. I had a wealth of online information that helped me in my search. I went to Edmunds and plugged in some information on my preferences and left with a short list of vehicles. After an afternoon spent test driving the cars my short list, I had determined my favorite – it was a model I didn’t even know about until my research on Edmunds! But I didn’t want to go back to the dealership where I test drove it. They were clearly old school and wanted me to buy the way that they wanted to sell. No thanks! After that I went back online. I figured out exactly what people had paid for this car in my area. I found out what kind of discount others were able to negotiate from an online community forum dedicated to the make and model. I found out how the sales people were being incentivized by the manufacturer that month. I learned which dealers had the best ratings and reviews. This was actually getting exciting. I was feeling really empowered. My next step was to request online quotes from the some of the highest rated dealers but I already knew exactly how much I was going to pay. This was really a test for the dealers. My new mantra was “let he who delivers the best customer experience win.” An inside sales rep from one dealer responded to my quote request within a couple of hours. I told him I had already decided on the make and model and it was just a matter of figuring out who I would buy it from. I also told them that I was really busy and wouldn’t set foot in the dealership unless we had come to terms beforehand. Lastly, I let him know that I’d prefer to work out the details via email. He promised to get back to me shortly with a detailed quote. Over the next few days I received calls from other dealers. One asked me a host of questions that I had already answered in their lengthy online form. Another blamed their website performance issues for their delay in responding to my request. But by then it didn’t really matter because I’d already bought the car days before from the dealer who responded to me first and who was willing to adjust their sales process to accommodate my buying one. So, yes, I really do believe we are in the midst of a customer experience revolution. And every revolution leaves some victorious and other vanquished. Which side do you want to be on when it comes to the customer experience revolution?

    Read the article

  • When is it better to offload work to the RDBMS rather than to do it in code?

    - by GeminiDomino
    Okay, I'll cop to it: I'm a better coder than I am at databases, and I'm wondering where thoughts on "best practices" lie on the subject of doing "simple" calculations in the SQL query vs. in the code, such as this MySQL example (I didn't write it, I just have to maintain it!) -- This returns the username, and the users age as of the last event. SELECT u.username as user, IF ((DAY(max(e.date)) - DAY(u.DOB)) &lt; 0 , TRUNCATE(((((YEAR(max(e.date))*12)+MONTH(max(e.date))) -((YEAR(u.DOB)*12)+MONTH(u.DOB)))-1)/12, 0), TRUNCATE((((YEAR(max(e.date))*12)+MONTH(max(e.date))) - ((YEAR(u.DOB)*12)+MONTH(u.DOB)))/12, 0)) AS age FROM users as u JOIN events as e ON u.id = e.uid ... Compared to doing the "heavy" lifting in code: Query: SELECT u.username, u.DOB as dob, e.event_date as edate FROM users as u JOIN events as e ON u.id = e.uid code: function ageAsOfDate($birth, $aod) { //expects dates in mysql Y-m-d format... list($by,$bm,$bd) = explode('-',$birth); list($ay,$am,$ad) = explode('-',$aod); //Insert Calculations here ... return $Dy; //Difference in years } echo "Hey! ". $row['user'] ." was ". ageAsOfDate($row['dob'], $row['edate']) . " when we last saw him."; I'm pretty sure in a simple case like this it wouldn't make much difference (other than the creeping feeling of horror when I have to make changes to queries like the first one), but I think it makes it clearer what I'm looking for. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • StyleCop Custom Rules

    - by Aligned
    There are several blogs on how to do this (http://scottwhite.blogspot.com/2008/11/creating-custom-stylecop-rules-in-c.html, etc). I’ve found a few useful things to point out: Debugging is difficult, but here are the steps (thanks to Tintin’s answer). “One way: 1) Delete your custom rules 2) Open Visual Studio (for dev), open your custom rule solution 3) Build & Deploy custom rules (a PostBuild action to copy the rules into the StyleCop folder is handy) 4) Open Visual Studio (for test) 5) Use VS (dev) and Attach to process devenv.exe (the test VS instance), set breakpoints in the rules you want to debug 6) Use VS’ (test) and right-click on project, Run StyleCop 7) Debug” ~ it worked once, now I’m having problems getting it to work again ~ I also get the message “Cannot evaluate expression because the code of the current method is optimized.” when I try to look at properties. Looking at the source code of the StyleCop.CSharp.Rules.dll that comes with the install. I used JustDecompile from Telerik. Create one xml file and name it the same as the one cs file (CodingGuildelineRules.cs and CodingGuidelinRules.xml) Deploy: 1. Build in Visual Studio 2. Close Visual Studio (Style cop is running so you can’t override your dll without closing) 3. Copy the dll from the bin to the C: \Program Files (x86)\StyleCop 4.7\ 4. Open the settings file or re-open Visual Studio

    Read the article

  • AppleTV - itunes store is temporarily unavailable - please check back later

    - by Ken
    When attempting to rent a movie on ATV, my wife received the error message above.  Alternately “server unavailable”.  When your wife is sick, the amount of IT support she needs goes up exponentially.  One piece of the puzzle was that she had changed her Apple ID password.  On her PC I ran iTunes and under account, there was only 1 device listed (not the ATV).  Even when signed out/back-in on the ATV under Settings>iTunes it still gave same error message.  What I suspect is it thinks she is trying to authorize the device to another Apple ID.  Some new 90 day rule limits when a device can be associated with another Apple ID.  Your iTunes store/account will show devices, and how long before they can be associated with a different Apple ID from the Account Information page in iTunes on your computer.  Apple must have no freaking idea why someone would want to know which ID is associated to the ATV (i.e. the vice versa), because it can’t be done. Solution: Try ATV settings>reset I swapped out ATV 1 for ATV 2 (used for music streaming downstairs).  I know it’s a cop-out solution, but remember I had a sick wife breathing down my neck.

    Read the article

  • Continuous Integration for SQL Server Part II – Integration Testing

    - by Ben Rees
    My previous post, on setting up Continuous Integration for SQL Server databases using GitHub, Bamboo and Red Gate’s tools, covered the first two parts of a simple Database Continuous Delivery process: Putting your database in to a source control system, and, Running a continuous integration process, each time changes are checked in. However there is, of course, a lot more to to Continuous Delivery than that. Specifically, in addition to the above: Putting some actual integration tests in to the CI process (otherwise, they don’t really do much, do they!?), Deploying the database changes with a managed, automated approach, Monitoring what you’ve just put live, to make sure you haven’t broken anything. This post will detail how to set up a very simple pipeline for implementing the first of these (continuous integration testing). NB: A lot of the setup in this post is built on top of the configuration from before, so it might be difficult to implement this post without running through part I first. There’ll then be a third post on automated database deployment followed by a final post dealing with the last item – monitoring changes on the live system. In the previous post, I used a mixture of Red Gate products and other 3rd party software – GitHub and Atlassian Bamboo specifically. This was partly because I believe most people work in an heterogeneous environment, using software from different vendors to suit their purposes and I wanted to show how this could work for this process. For example, you could easily substitute Atlassian’s BitBucket or Stash for GitHub, depending on your needs, or use an alternative CI server such as TeamCity, TFS or Jenkins. However, in this, post, I’ll be mostly using Red Gate products only (other than tSQLt). I would do this, firstly because I work for Red Gate. However, I also think that in the area of Database Delivery processes, nobody else has the offerings to implement this process fully – so I didn’t have any choice!   Background on Continuous Delivery For me, a great source of information on what makes a proper Continuous Delivery process is the Jez Humble and David Farley classic: Continuous Delivery – Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation This book is not of course, primarily about databases, and the process I outline here and in the previous article is a gross simplification of what Jez and David describe (not least because it’s that much harder for databases!). However, a lot of the principles that they describe can be equally applied to database development and, I would argue, should be. As I say however, what I describe here is a very simple version of what would be required for a full production process. A couple of useful resources on handling some of these complexities can be found in the following two references: Refactoring Databases – Evolutionary Database Design, by Scott J Ambler and Pramod J. Sadalage Versioning Databases – Branching and Merging, by Scott Allen In particular, I don’t deal at all with the issues of multiple branches and merging of those branches, an issue made particularly acute by the use of GitHub. The other point worth making is that, in the words of Martin Fowler: Continuous Delivery is about keeping your application in a state where it is always able to deploy into production.   I.e. we are not talking about continuously delivery updates to the production database every time someone checks in an amendment to a stored procedure. That is possible (and what Martin calls Continuous Deployment). However, again, that’s more than I describe in this article. And I doubt I need to remind DBAs or Developers to Proceed with Caution!   Integration Testing Back to something practical. The next stage, building on our set up from the previous article, is to add in some integration tests to the process. As I say, the CI process, though interesting, isn’t enormously useful without some sort of test process running. For this we’ll use the tSQLt framework, an open source framework designed specifically for running SQL Server tests. tSQLt is part of Red Gate’s SQL Test found on http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-test/ or can be downloaded separately from www.tsqlt.org - though I’ll provide a step-by-step guide below for setting this up. Getting tSQLt set up via SQL Test Click on the link http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-test/ and click on the blue Download button to download the Red Gate SQL Test product, if not already installed. Follow the install process for SQL Test to install the SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) plugin on to your machine, if not already installed. Open SSMS. You should now see SQL Test under the Tools menu:   Clicking this link will give you the basic SQL Test dialogue: As yet, though we’ve installed the SQL Test product we haven’t yet installed the tSQLt test framework on to any particular database. To do this, we need to add our RedGateApp database using this dialogue, by clicking on the + Add Database to SQL Test… link, selecting the RedGateApp database and clicking the Add Database link:   In the next screen, SQL Test describes what will be installed on the database for the tSQLt framework. Also in this dialogue, uncheck the “Add SQL Cop tests” option (shown below). SQL Cop is a great set of pre-defined tests that work within the tSQLt framework to check the general health of your SQL Server database. However, we won’t be using them in this particular simple example: Once you’ve clicked on the OK button, the changes described in the dialogue will be made to your database. Some of these are shown in the left-hand-side below: We’ve now installed the framework. However, we haven’t actually created any tests, so this will be the next step. But, before we proceed, we’ve made an update to our database so should, again check this in to source control, adding comments as required:   Also worth a quick check that your build still runs with the new additions!: (And a quick check of the RedGateAppCI database shows that the changes have been made).   Creating and Testing a Unit Test There are, of course, a lot of very interesting unit tests that you could and should set up for a database. The great thing about the tSQLt framework is that you can write these in SQL. The example I’m going to use here is pretty Mickey Mouse – our database table is going to include some email addresses as reference data and I want to check whether these are all in a correct email format. Nothing clever but it illustrates the process and hopefully shows the method by which more interesting tests could be set up. Adding Reference Data to our Database To start, I want to add some reference data to my database, and have this source controlled (as well as the schema). First of all I need to add some data in to my solitary table – this can be done a number of ways, but I’ll do this in SSMS for simplicity: I then add some reference data to my table: Currently this reference data just exists in the database. For proper integration testing, this needs to form part of the source-controlled version of the database – and so needs to be added to the Git repository. This can be done via SQL Source Control, though first a Primary Key needs to be added to the table. Right click the table, select Design, then right-click on the first “id” row. Then click on “Set Primary Key”: NB: once this change is made, click Save to save the change to the table. Then, to source control this reference data, right click on the table (dbo.Email) and selecting the following option:   In the next screen, link the data in the Email table, by selecting it from the list and clicking “save and close”: We should at this point re-commit the changes (both the addition of the Primary Key, and the data) to the Git repo. NB: From here on, I won’t show screenshots for the GitHub side of things – it’s the same each time: whenever a change is made in SQL Source Control and committed to your local folder, you then need to sync this in the GitHub Windows client (as this is where the build server, Bamboo is taking it from). An interesting point to note here, when these changes are committed in SQL Source Control (right-click database and select “Commit Changes to Source Control..”): The display gives a warning about possibly needing a migration script for the “Add Primary Key” step of the changes. This isn’t actually necessary in this case, but this mechanism would allow you to create override scripts to replace the default change scripts created by the SQL Compare engine (which runs underneath SQL Source Control). Ignoring this message (!), we add a comment and commit the changes to Git. I then sync these, run a build (or the build gets run automatically), and check that the data is being deployed over to the target RedGateAppCI database:   Creating and Running the Test As I mention, the test I’m going to use here is a very simple one - are the email addresses in my reference table valid? This isn’t of course, a full test of email validation (I expect the email addresses I’ve chosen here aren’t really the those of the Fab Four) – but just a very basic check of format used. I’ve taken the relevant SQL from this Stack Overflow article. In SSMS select “SQL Test” from the Tools menu, then click on + New Test: In the next screen, give your new test a name, and also enter a name in the Test Class box (test classes are schemas that help you keep things organised). Also check that the database in which the test is going to be created is correct – RedGateApp in this example: Click “Create Test”. After closing a couple of subsequent dialogues, you’ll see a dummy script for the test, that needs filling in:   We now need to define the SQL for our test. As mentioned before, tSQLt allows you to write your unit tests in T-SQL, and the code I’m going to use here is as below. This needs to be copied and pasted in to the query window, to replace the default given by tSQLt: –  Basic email check test ALTER PROCEDURE [MyChecks].[test Check Email Addresses] AS BEGIN SET NOCOUNT ON         Declare @Output VarChar(max)     Set @Output = ”       SELECT  @Output = @Output + Email +Char(13) + Char(10) FROM dbo.Email WHERE email NOT LIKE ‘%_@__%.__%’       If @Output > ”         Begin             Set @Output = Char(13) + Char(10)                           + @Output             EXEC tSQLt.Fail@Output         End   END;   Once this script is entered, hit execute to add the Stored Procedure to the database. Before committing the test to source control,  it’s worth just checking that it works! For a positive test, click on “SQL Test” from the Tools menu, then click Run Tests. You should see output like the following: - a green tick to indicate success! But of course, what we also need to do is test that this is actually doing something by showing a failed test. Edit one of the email addresses in your table to an incorrect format: Now, re-run the same SQL Test as before and you’ll see the following: Great – we now know that our test is really doing something! You’ll also see a useful error message at the bottom of SSMS: (leave the email address as invalid for now, for the next steps). The next stage is to check this new test in to source control again, by right-clicking on the database and checking in the changes with a commit message (and not forgetting to sync in the GitHub client):   Checking that the Tests are Running as Integration Tests After the changes above are made, and after a build has run on Bamboo (manual or automatic), looking at the Stored Procedures for the RedGateAppCI, the SPROC for the new test has been moved over to the database. However this is not exactly what we were after. We didn’t want to just copy objects from one database to another, but actually run the tests as part of the build/integration test process. I.e. we’re continuously checking any changes we make (in this case, to the reference data emails), to ensure we’re not breaking a test that we’ve set up. The behaviour we want to see is that, if we check in static data that is incorrect (as we did in step 9 above) and we have the tSQLt test set up, then our build in Bamboo should fail. However, re-running the build shows the following: - sadly, a successful build! To make sure the tSQLt tests are run as part of the integration test, we need to amend a switch in the Red Gate CI config file. First, navigate to file sqlCI.targets in your working folder: Edit this document, make the following change, save the document, then commit and sync this change in the GitHub client: <!-- tSQLt tests --> <!-- Optional --> <!-- To run tSQLt tests in source control for the database, enter true. --> <enableTsqlt>true</enableTsqlt> Now, if we re-run the build in Bamboo (NB: I’ve moved to a new server here, hence different address and build number): - superb, a broken build!! The error message isn’t great here, so to get more detailed info, click on the full build log link on this page (below the fold). The interesting part of the log shown is towards the bottom. Pulling out this part:   21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 Build FAILED. 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 "C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj" (default target) (1) -> 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 (sqlCI target) -> 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: RedGate.Deploy.SqlServerDbPackage.Shared.Exceptions.InvalidSqlException: Test Case Summary: 1 test case(s) executed, 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 errored. [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: [MyChecks].[test Check Email Addresses] failed: [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: ringo.starr@beatles [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: +----------------------+ [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj] 21-Jun-2013 11:35:19 EXEC : sqlCI error occurred: |Test Execution Summary| [C:\Users\Administrator\bamboo-home\xml-data\build-dir\RGA-RGP-JOB1\sqlCI.proj]   As a final check, we should make sure that, if we now fix this error, the build succeeds. So in SSMS, I’m going to correct the invalid email address, then check this change in to SQL Source Control (with a comment), commit to GitHub, and re-run the build:   This should have fixed the build: It worked! Summary This has been a very quick run through the implementation of CI for databases, including tSQLt tests to test whether your database updates are working. The next post in this series will focus on automated deployment – we’ve tested our database changes, how can we now deploy these to target sites?  

    Read the article

  • Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture (EA)

    - by TedMcLaughlan
    Selling Federal Enterprise Architecture A taxonomy of subject areas, from which to develop a prioritized marketing and communications plan to evangelize EA activities within and among US Federal Government organizations and constituents. Any and all feedback is appreciated, particularly in developing and extending this discussion as a tool for use – more information and details are also available. "Selling" the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the Federal Government (particularly in non-DoD agencies) is difficult, notwithstanding the general availability and use of the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) for some time now, and the relatively mature use of the reference models in the OMB Capital Planning and Investment (CPIC) cycles. EA in the Federal Government also tends to be a very esoteric and hard to decipher conversation – early apologies to those who agree to continue reading this somewhat lengthy article. Alignment to the FEAF and OMB compliance mandates is long underway across the Federal Departments and Agencies (and visible via tools like PortfolioStat and ITDashboard.gov – but there is still a gap between the top-down compliance directives and enablement programs, and the bottom-up awareness and effective use of EA for either IT investment management or actual mission effectiveness. "EA isn't getting deep enough penetration into programs, components, sub-agencies, etc.", verified a panelist at the most recent EA Government Conference in DC. Newer guidance from OMB may be especially difficult to handle, where bottom-up input can't be accurately aligned, analyzed and reported via standardized EA discipline at the Agency level – for example in addressing the new (for FY13) Exhibit 53D "Agency IT Reductions and Reinvestments" and the information required for "Cloud Computing Alternatives Evaluation" (supporting the new Exhibit 53C, "Agency Cloud Computing Portfolio"). Therefore, EA must be "sold" directly to the communities that matter, from a coordinated, proactive messaging perspective that takes BOTH the Program-level value drivers AND the broader Agency mission and IT maturity context into consideration. Selling EA means persuading others to take additional time and possibly assign additional resources, for a mix of direct and indirect benefits – many of which aren't likely to be realized in the short-term. This means there's probably little current, allocated budget to work with; ergo the challenge of trying to sell an "unfunded mandate". Also, the concept of "Enterprise" in large Departments like Homeland Security tends to cross all kinds of organizational boundaries – as Richard Spires recently indicated by commenting that "...organizational boundaries still trump functional similarities. Most people understand what we're trying to do internally, and at a high level they get it. The problem, of course, is when you get down to them and their system and the fact that you're going to be touching them...there's always that fear factor," Spires said. It is quite clear to the Federal IT Investment community that for EA to meet its objective, understandable, relevant value must be measured and reported using a repeatable method – as described by GAO's recent report "Enterprise Architecture Value Needs To Be Measured and Reported". What's not clear is the method or guidance to sell this value. In fact, the current GAO "Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0)", a.k.a. the "EAMMF", does not include words like "sell", "persuade", "market", etc., except in reference ("within Core Element 19: Organization business owner and CXO representatives are actively engaged in architecture development") to a brief section in the CIO Council's 2001 "Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture", entitled "3.3.1. Develop an EA Marketing Strategy and Communications Plan." Furthermore, Core Element 19 of the EAMMF is advised to be applied in "Stage 3: Developing Initial EA Versions". This kind of EA sales campaign truly should start much earlier in the maturity progress, i.e. in Stages 0 or 1. So, what are the understandable, relevant benefits (or value) to sell, that can find an agreeable, participatory audience, and can pave the way towards success of a longer-term, funded set of EA mechanisms that can be methodically measured and reported? Pragmatic benefits from a useful EA that can help overcome the fear of change? And how should they be sold? Following is a brief taxonomy (it's a taxonomy, to help organize SME support) of benefit-related subjects that might make the most sense, in creating the messages and organizing an initial "engagement plan" for evangelizing EA "from within". An EA "Sales Taxonomy" of sorts. We're not boiling the ocean here; the subjects that are included are ones that currently appear to be urgently relevant to the current Federal IT Investment landscape. Note that successful dialogue in these topics is directly usable as input or guidance for actually developing early-stage, "Fit-for-Purpose" (a DoDAF term) Enterprise Architecture artifacts, as prescribed by common methods found in most EA methodologies, including FEAF, TOGAF, DoDAF and our own Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF). The taxonomy below is organized by (1) Target Community, (2) Benefit or Value, and (3) EA Program Facet - as in: "Let's talk to (1: Community Member) about how and why (3: EA Facet) the EA program can help with (2: Benefit/Value)". Once the initial discussion targets and subjects are approved (that can be measured and reported), a "marketing and communications plan" can be created. A working example follows the Taxonomy. Enterprise Architecture Sales Taxonomy Draft, Summary Version 1. Community 1.1. Budgeted Programs or Portfolios Communities of Purpose (CoPR) 1.1.1. Program/System Owners (Senior Execs) Creating or Executing Acquisition Plans 1.1.2. Program/System Owners Facing Strategic Change 1.1.2.1. Mandated 1.1.2.2. Expected/Anticipated 1.1.3. Program Managers - Creating Employee Performance Plans 1.1.4. CO/COTRs – Creating Contractor Performance Plans, or evaluating Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP) 1.2. Governance & Communications Communities of Practice (CoP) 1.2.1. Policy Owners 1.2.1.1. OCFO 1.2.1.1.1. Budget/Procurement Office 1.2.1.1.2. Strategic Planning 1.2.1.2. OCIO 1.2.1.2.1. IT Management 1.2.1.2.2. IT Operations 1.2.1.2.3. Information Assurance (Cyber Security) 1.2.1.2.4. IT Innovation 1.2.1.3. Information-Sharing/ Process Collaboration (i.e. policies and procedures regarding Partners, Agreements) 1.2.2. Governing IT Council/SME Peers (i.e. an "Architects Council") 1.2.2.1. Enterprise Architects (assumes others exist; also assumes EA participants aren't buried solely within the CIO shop) 1.2.2.2. Domain, Enclave, Segment Architects – i.e. the right affinity group for a "shared services" EA structure (per the EAMMF), which may be classified as Federated, Segmented, Service-Oriented, or Extended 1.2.2.3. External Oversight/Constraints 1.2.2.3.1. GAO/OIG & Legal 1.2.2.3.2. Industry Standards 1.2.2.3.3. Official public notification, response 1.2.3. Mission Constituents Participant & Analyst Community of Interest (CoI) 1.2.3.1. Mission Operators/Users 1.2.3.2. Public Constituents 1.2.3.3. Industry Advisory Groups, Stakeholders 1.2.3.4. Media 2. Benefit/Value (Note the actual benefits may not be discretely attributable to EA alone; EA is a very collaborative, cross-cutting discipline.) 2.1. Program Costs – EA enables sound decisions regarding... 2.1.1. Cost Avoidance – a TCO theme 2.1.2. Sequencing – alignment of capability delivery 2.1.3. Budget Instability – a Federal reality 2.2. Investment Capital – EA illuminates new investment resources via... 2.2.1. Value Engineering – contractor-driven cost savings on existing budgets, direct or collateral 2.2.2. Reuse – reuse of investments between programs can result in savings, chargeback models; avoiding duplication 2.2.3. License Refactoring – IT license & support models may not reflect actual or intended usage 2.3. Contextual Knowledge – EA enables informed decisions by revealing... 2.3.1. Common Operating Picture (COP) – i.e. cross-program impacts and synergy, relative to context 2.3.2. Expertise & Skill – who truly should be involved in architectural decisions, both business and IT 2.3.3. Influence – the impact of politics and relationships can be examined 2.3.4. Disruptive Technologies – new technologies may reduce costs or mitigate risk in unanticipated ways 2.3.5. What-If Scenarios – can become much more refined, current, verifiable; basis for Target Architectures 2.4. Mission Performance – EA enables beneficial decision results regarding... 2.4.1. IT Performance and Optimization – towards 100% effective, available resource utilization 2.4.2. IT Stability – towards 100%, real-time uptime 2.4.3. Agility – responding to rapid changes in mission 2.4.4. Outcomes –measures of mission success, KPIs – vs. only "Outputs" 2.4.5. Constraints – appropriate response to constraints 2.4.6. Personnel Performance – better line-of-sight through performance plans to mission outcome 2.5. Mission Risk Mitigation – EA mitigates decision risks in terms of... 2.5.1. Compliance – all the right boxes are checked 2.5.2. Dependencies –cross-agency, segment, government 2.5.3. Transparency – risks, impact and resource utilization are illuminated quickly, comprehensively 2.5.4. Threats and Vulnerabilities – current, realistic awareness and profiles 2.5.5. Consequences – realization of risk can be mapped as a series of consequences, from earlier decisions or new decisions required for current issues 2.5.5.1. Unanticipated – illuminating signals of future or non-symmetric risk; helping to "future-proof" 2.5.5.2. Anticipated – discovering the level of impact that matters 3. EA Program Facet (What parts of the EA can and should be communicated, using business or mission terms?) 3.1. Architecture Models – the visual tools to be created and used 3.1.1. Operating Architecture – the Business Operating Model/Architecture elements of the EA truly drive all other elements, plus expose communication channels 3.1.2. Use Of – how can the EA models be used, and how are they populated, from a reasonable, pragmatic yet compliant perspective? What are the core/minimal models required? What's the relationship of these models, with existing system models? 3.1.3. Scope – what level of granularity within the models, and what level of abstraction across the models, is likely to be most effective and useful? 3.2. Traceability – the maturity, status, completeness of the tools 3.2.1. Status – what in fact is the degree of maturity across the integrated EA model and other relevant governance models, and who may already be benefiting from it? 3.2.2. Visibility – how does the EA visibly and effectively prove IT investment performance goals are being reached, with positive mission outcome? 3.3. Governance – what's the interaction, participation method; how are the tools used? 3.3.1. Contributions – how is the EA program informed, accept submissions, collect data? Who are the experts? 3.3.2. Review – how is the EA validated, against what criteria?  Taxonomy Usage Example:   1. To speak with: a. ...a particular set of System Owners Facing Strategic Change, via mandate (like the "Cloud First" mandate); about... b. ...how the EA program's visible and easily accessible Infrastructure Reference Model (i.e. "IRM" or "TRM"), if updated more completely with current system data, can... c. ...help shed light on ways to mitigate risks and avoid future costs associated with NOT leveraging potentially-available shared services across the enterprise... 2. ....the following Marketing & Communications (Sales) Plan can be constructed: a. Create an easy-to-read "Consequence Model" that illustrates how adoption of a cloud capability (like elastic operational storage) can enable rapid and durable compliance with the mandate – using EA traceability. Traceability might be from the IRM to the ARM (that identifies reusable services invoking the elastic storage), and then to the PRM with performance measures (such as % utilization of purchased storage allocation) included in the OMB Exhibits; and b. Schedule a meeting with the Program Owners, timed during their Acquisition Strategy meetings in response to the mandate, to use the "Consequence Model" for advising them to organize a rapid and relevant RFI solicitation for this cloud capability (regarding alternatives for sourcing elastic operational storage); and c. Schedule a series of short "Discovery" meetings with the system architecture leads (as agreed by the Program Owners), to further populate/validate the "As-Is" models and frame the "To Be" models (via scenarios), to better inform the RFI, obtain the best feedback from the vendor community, and provide potential value for and avoid impact to all other programs and systems. --end example -- Note that communications with the intended audience should take a page out of the standard "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) playbook, using keywords and phrases relating to "value" and "outcome" vs. "compliance" and "output". Searches in email boxes, internal and external search engines for phrases like "cost avoidance strategies", "mission performance metrics" and "innovation funding" should yield messages and content from the EA team. This targeted, informed, practical sales approach should result in additional buy-in and participation, additional EA information contribution and model validation, development of more SMEs and quick "proof points" (with real-life testing) to bolster the case for EA. The proof point here is a successful, timely procurement that satisfies not only the external mandate and external oversight review, but also meets internal EA compliance/conformance goals and therefore is more transparently useful across the community. In short, if sold effectively, the EA will perform and be recognized. EA won’t therefore be used only for compliance, but also (according to a validated, stated purpose) to directly influence decisions and outcomes. The opinions, views and analysis expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Oracle.

    Read the article

  • How to name an event handler of a private variable in Vb.Net following FxCop rules and Vb.Net standa

    - by SoMoS
    Hello, On one side, in Vb.Net when you add an event handler to an object the created method is named: <NameOfTheObject>_<NameOfTheMethod>. As I like to have consistent syntax I always follow this rule when creating event handlers by hand. On the other side when I create private variables I prefix them with m_ as this is a common thing used by the community, in C# people use to put _ at the beginning of a variable but this is no CLS compliant. At the end, when I create event handlers for events raised by private variables I end with Subs like m_myVariable_MyEvent. Code Analysis (Fx Cop) is complainig about this way of naming because the method does not start with uppercase and because the _, so the question is: What naming standards do you follow when creating event handlers by hand that follow the Fxcop rules if any? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >