Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'kgb'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • I want tell the VC++ Compiler to compile all code. Can it be done?

    - by KGB
    I am using VS2005 VC++ for unmanaged C++. I have VSTS and am trying to use the code coverage tool to accomplish two things with regards to unit tests: See how much of my referenced code under test is getting executed See how many methods of my code under test (if any) are not unit tested at all Setting up the VSTS code coverage tool (see the link text) and accomplishing task #1 was straightforward. However #2 has been a surprising challenge for me. Here is my test code. class CodeCoverageTarget { public: std::string ThisMethodRuns() { return "Running"; } std::string ThisMethodDoesNotRun() { return "Not Running"; } }; #include <iostream> #include "CodeCoverageTarget.h" using namespace std; int main() { CodeCoverageTarget cct; cout<<cct.ThisMethodRuns()<<endl; } When both methods are defined within the class as above the compiler automatically eliminates the ThisMethodDoesNotRun() from the obj file. If I move it's definition outside the class then it is included in the obj file and the code coverage tool shows it has not been exercised at all. Under most circumstances I want the compiler to do this elimination for me but for the code coverage tool it defeats a significant portion of the value (e.g. finding untested methods). I have tried a number of things to tell the compiler to stop being smart for me and compile everything but I am stumped. It would be nice if the code coverage tool compensated for this (I suppose by scanning the source and matching it up with the linker output) but I didn't find anything to suggest it has a special mode to be turned on. Am I totally missing something simple here or is this not possible with the VC++ compiler + VSTS code coverage tool? Thanks in advance, KGB

    Read the article

  • Restricting access to one controller of an MVC app with Nginx

    - by kgb
    I have an MVC app where one controller needs to be accessible only from several ips(this controller is an oauth token callback trap - for google/fb api tokens). My conf looks like this: geo $oauth { default 0; 87.240.156.0/24 1; 87.240.131.0/24 1; } server { listen 80; server_name some.server.name.tld default_server; root /home/user/path; index index.php; location /oauth { deny all; if ($oauth) { rewrite ^(.*)$ /index.php last; } } location / { if ($request_filename !~ "\.(phtml|html|htm|jpg|jpeg|gif|png|ico|css|zip|tgz|gz|rar|bz2|doc|xls|exe|pdf|ppt|txt|tar|mid|midi|wav|bmp|rtf|js|xlsx)$") { rewrite ^(.*)$ /index.php last; break; } } location ~ \.php$ { fastcgi_pass unix:/var/run/php5-fpm.sock; fastcgi_index index.php; include fastcgi_params; } } It works, but does not look right. The following seems logical to me: location /oauth { allow 87.240.156.0/24; deny all; rewrite ^(.*)$ /index.php last; } But this way rewrite happens all the time, allow and deny directives are ignored. I don't understand why...

    Read the article

  • Rails find over multiple models

    - by kgb
    I think I'm missing something very obvious and its making my brain hurt. class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :profile class Profile < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :user belongs_to :team I have a partial that loops through the users and print some basic info, I'm using this partial in my team show page. I had originally written this to return users who's profiles were a member of a team. def show @team = Team.find_by_id(params[:id]) @profiles= Profile.find(:all, :conditions => ['team_id = ?', @team.id]) @users = User.find_by_id(@profiles.user_id) end But quickly realized @profiles was an array, and it looks messy as hell. Stuck as to what my find should look like to select all User who have a profile that is a member of a team. The partial that is working elsewhere for displaying users looks like this <% for user in @users%> <table> <tr> <td> <%= image_tag user.profile.picture.url %> </td> <td> <a href="/users/<%= user.id %>"><%= user.login %></a> </td> <td> <%= user.profile.first_name %> <%= user.profile.second_name %> </td> <td> <%= user.profile.status %> </td> </tr> </table> <% end %> Development log output with updated show and relationships Processing TeamsController#show (for 127.0.0.1 at 2010-03-30 22:06:31) [GET] Parameters: {"id"=>"1"} User Load (1.3ms) SELECT * FROM "users" WHERE ("users"."id" = 3) LIMIT 1 Team Load (1.0ms) SELECT * FROM "teams" WHERE ("teams"."id" = 1) Rendering template within layouts/main Rendering teams/show Completed in 75ms (View: 11, DB: 2) | 200 OK [http://localhost/teams/1]

    Read the article

  • collection_select not working as expected

    - by kgb
    First time I've come to use collection_select in a project and I've hit a wall with it. A Profile has_one Team, Team has_many Profile. In my view for editing profiles I have this. <td><%= f.collection_select(:team_id, @team, :id, :title) %></td> Which populates the drop down with titles of teams as expected. The couple of examples I have read seem to use it in a very similar way. I can't figure out when the profile is saved why it isn't populating the team_id field in my DB. In the development log the team_id is being passed. Processing ProfilesController#update (for 127.0.0.1 at 2010-03-28 22:49:16) [PUT] Parameters: {"commit"=>"Update", "profile"=>{"dob(1i)"=>"2010", "second_name"=>"", "dob(2i)"=>"3", "role"=>"", "dob(3i)"=>"28", "project"=>"", "specialties"=>"", "about"=>"", "team_id"=>"1", "status"=>"", "first_name"=>""}, "authenticity_token"=>"sdTiFPGj9JCO3OEge5EGNGxZbQSsq9ME5LP342EBjyc=", "id"=>"3"} The update controller is the standard scaffold one, this has worked fine for all other additions to the profile model I'd made previously. Am I missing something obvious?

    Read the article

  • question and answer engine architecture

    - by sarvesh
    Can anyone give me insights as to how websites like chacha.com / kgb.com are designed. What could be the components involved when a user sends out an sms and how is that question stored. Should the question and answers be stored in a relational model or non relational?

    Read the article

1