Search Results

Search found 19211 results on 769 pages for 'ui automated testing'.

Page 100/769 | < Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >

  • Can not update Natty running from a USB stick

    - by Ingo Gerth
    In a blogpost Jono explained a nice way to test the latest version of Natty. Under point four he proposes: Step 4: Update Although you installed the latest daily you should ensure it is up to date, and you can do this with: sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get upgrade Now, I followed all the steps and am actually writing this question from a session running on a 4GB USB stick. When trying to update the installation though (I just tried to do that using the Update Manager), it always fails because I do not have enough disc space remaining. How can I get Ubuntu to update properly on my USB stick?

    Read the article

  • What have you learned from the bugs you helped discover and fix?

    - by Ethel Evans
    I liked the core of this question, and wanted to re-ask it in a way that made it less about 'fun' and more about 'What do these past mistakes tell us about how we can write and test software better?' As an SDET, I'm always looking for anecdotes about new and interesting ways that programs can fail. I've learned a lot from these tales in the past, and would like to get that from the intelligent people in this community as well. I'd be interested in hearing what the issue was, how it was caught, if you think there was anything that could have reasonably done to catch it earlier or to avoid the same issue on later projects, and any other interesting lessons you took away from this bug. Please only write about bugs you personally were involved with, ideally on a project you worked on (e.g., no "10 years before I was born, this happened and it was FUNNY!" answers). Please vote up answers that are thought-provoking or could change how you develop or test in some way, so this isn't just 'social fun'. Try to avoid voting up something just because it was funny.

    Read the article

  • What is an acceptable level of FPS in browser workslow editor?

    - by Theo Walcott
    I'm developing a diagraming tool and need some metrics to test it against. Unfortunately I couldn't find information regarding an average acceptable FPS level for this kind of web apps. We all know such levels for action games (which is 60fps minimum), 25fps for videostreaming. Can anyone give me some information reagarding minimal FPS level for drawing web apps? What tools would you recomend to test my app?

    Read the article

  • What is the value to checking in broken unit tests?

    - by Adam W.
    While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in broken unit tests? I will use a simple example. Case sensitivity. The current code is Case Sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests has found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

    Read the article

  • Are unit tests really used as documentation?

    - by stijn
    I cannot count the number of times I read statements in the vein of 'unit tests are a very important source of documentation of the code under test'. I do not deny they are true. But personally I haven't found myself using them as documentation, ever. For the typical frameworks I use, the method declarations document their behaviour and that's all I need. And I assume the unit tests backup everything stated in that documentation, plus likely some more internal stuff, so on one side it duplicates the ducumentation while on the other it might add some more that is irrelevant. So the question is: when are unit tests used as documentation? When the comments do not cover everything? By developpers extending the source? And what do they expose that can be useful and relevant that the documentation itself cannot expose?

    Read the article

  • Should tests be in the same Ruby file or in separated 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

  • What to do when TDD tests reveal new functionality that is needed that also needs tests?

    - by Joshua Harris
    What do you do when you are writing a test and you get to the point where you need to make the test pass and you realize that you need an additional piece of functionality that should be separated into its own function? That new function needs to be tested as well, but the TDD cycle says to Make a test fail, make it pass then refactor. If I am on the step where I am trying to make my test pass I'm not supposed to go off and start another failing test to test the new functionality that I need to implement. For example, I am writing a point class that has a function WillCollideWith(LineSegment): public class Point { // Point data and constructor ... public bool CollidesWithLine(LineSegment lineSegment) { Vector PointEndOfMovement = new Vector(Position.X + Velocity.X, Position.Y + Velocity.Y); LineSegment pointPath = new LineSegment(Position, PointEndOfMovement); if (lineSegment.Intersects(pointPath)) return true; return false; } } I was writing a test for CollidesWithLine when I realized that I would need a LineSegment.Intersects(LineSegment) function. But, should I just stop what I am doing on my test cycle to go create this new functionality? That seems to break the "Red, Green, Refactor" principle. Should I just write the code that detects that lineSegments Intersect inside of the CollidesWithLine function and refactor it after it is working? That would work in this case since I can access the data from LineSegment, but what about in cases where that kind of data is private?

    Read the article

  • How can I refresh/reinstall/clear/set-to-default my bootup process?

    - by Tchalvak
    I'm currently having a problem with my bootup process that is growing progressively worse as time goes on: While booting, it does a few minutes of hard-drive reading. During that, instead of showing a boot splash screen, it shows various dashes and dots, as if the video card isn't recognizing. The splash screen actually has colors similar to the splash screen (purple), it simply is garbled. It then does a few minutes of hard-drive reads, and if I leave it long enough, sometimes it boots into the desktop (and auto-logs-in). Sometimes, unfortunately, it just hangs on that garbled screen and reads from the hard-drive forever. Notably, I've also stopped being able to access grub during bootup (perhaps it is just not displayed correctly by the video, hard to tell). This is a symptom that has grown over the course of various ubuntu upgrades, at least I suspect that the upgrade process is leaving behind cruft. So, is there a safe way for me to "refresh" the boot system so that it is clean, new, fast, and reliable? For example, to test out a cleanly configured boot, make sure that it works (try before I buy), and then apply it to the system to eliminate as much of this problem as possible? Edit: Here is the requested bootchart: http://imgur.com/9jocF

    Read the article

  • Test driven development - convince me!

    - by Casebash
    I know some people are massive proponents of test driven development. I have used unit tests in the past, but only to test operations that can be tested easily or which I believe will quite possibly be correct. Complete or near complete code coverage sounds like it would take a lot of time. What projects do you use test-driven development for? Do you only use it for projects above a certain size? Should I be using it or not? Convince me!

    Read the article

  • Controlling the Sizing of the af:messages Dialog

    - by Duncan Mills
    Over the last day or so a small change in behaviour between 11.1.2.n releases of ADF and earlier versions has come to my attention. This has concerned the default sizing of the dialog that the framework automatically generates to handle the display of JSF messages being handled by the <af:messages> component. Unlike a normal popup, you don't have a physical <af:dialog> or <af:window> to set the sizing on in your page definition, so you're at the mercy of what the framework provides. In this case the framework now defines a fixed 250x250 pixel content area dialog for these messages, which can look a bit weird if the message is either very short, or very long. Unfortunately this is not something that you can control through the skin, instead you have to be a little more creative. Here's the solution I've come up with.  Unfortunately, I've not found a supportable way to reset the dialog so as to say  just size yourself based on your contents, it is actually possible to do this by tweaking the correct DOM objects, but I wanted to start with a mostly supportable solution that only uses the best practice of working through the ADF client side APIs. The Technique The basic approach I've taken is really very simple.  The af:messages dialog is just a normal richDialog object, it just happens to be one that is pre-defined for you with a particular known name "msgDlg" (which hopefully won't change). Knowing this, you can call the accepted APIs to control the content width and height of that dialog, as our meerkat friends would say, "simples" 1 The JavaScript For this example I've defined three JavaScript functions.   The first does all the hard work and is designed to be called from server side Java or from a page load event to set the default. The second is a utility function used by the first to validate the values you're about to use for height and width. The final function is one that can be called from the page load event to set an initial default sizing if that's all you need to do. Function resizeDefaultMessageDialog() /**  * Function that actually resets the default message dialog sizing.  * Note that the width and height supplied define the content area  * So the actual physical dialog size will be larger to account for  * the chrome containing the header / footer etc.  * @param docId Faces component id of the document  * @param contentWidth - new content width you need  * @param contentHeight - new content height  */ function resizeDefaultMessageDialog(docId, contentWidth, contentHeight) {   // Warning this value may change from release to release   var defMDName = "::msgDlg";   //Find the default messages dialog   msgDialogComponent = AdfPage.PAGE.findComponentByAbsoluteId(docId + defMDName); // In your version add a check here to ensure we've found the right object!   // Check the new width is supplied and is a positive number, if so apply it.   if (dimensionIsValid(contentWidth)){       msgDialogComponent.setContentWidth(contentWidth);   }   // Check the new height is supplied and is a positive number, if so apply it.   if (dimensionIsValid(contentHeight)){       msgDialogComponent.setContentHeight(contentHeight);   } }  Function dimensionIsValid()  /**  * Simple function to check that sensible numeric values are   * being proposed for a dimension  * @param sampleDimension   * @return booolean  */ function dimensionIsValid(sampleDimension){     return (!isNaN(sampleDimension) && sampleDimension > 0); } Function  initializeDefaultMessageDialogSize() /**  * This function will re-define the default sizing applied by the framework   * in 11.1.2.n versions  * It is designed to be called with the document onLoad event  */ function initializeDefaultMessageDialogSize(loadEvent){   //get the configuration information   var documentId = loadEvent.getSource().getProperty('documentId');   var newWidth = loadEvent.getSource().getProperty('defaultMessageDialogContentWidth');   var newHeight = loadEvent.getSource().getProperty('defaultMessageDialogContentHeight');   resizeDefaultMessageDialog(documentId, newWidth, newHeight); } Wiring in the Functions As usual, the first thing we need to do when using JavaScript with ADF is to define an af:resource  in the document metaContainer facet <af:document>   ....     <f:facet name="metaContainer">     <af:resource type="javascript" source="/resources/js/hackMessagedDialog.js"/>    </f:facet> </af:document> This makes the script functions available to call.  Next if you want to use the option of defining an initial default size for the dialog you use a combination of <af:clientListener> and <af:clientAttribute> tags like this. <af:document title="MyApp" id="doc1">   <af:clientListener method="initializeDefaultMessageDialogSize" type="load"/>   <af:clientAttribute name="documentId" value="doc1"/>   <af:clientAttribute name="defaultMessageDialogContentWidth" value="400"/>   <af:clientAttribute name="defaultMessageDialogContentHeight" value="150"/>  ...   Just in Time Dialog Sizing  So  what happens if you have a variety of messages that you might add and in some cases you need a small dialog and an other cases a large one? Well in that case you can re-size these dialogs just before you submit the message. Here's some example Java code: FacesContext ctx = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();          //reset the default dialog size for this message ExtendedRenderKitService service =              Service.getRenderKitService(ctx, ExtendedRenderKitService.class); service.addScript(ctx, "resizeDefaultMessageDialog('doc1',100,50);");          FacesMessage msg = new FacesMessage("Short message"); msg.setSeverity(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR); ctx.addMessage(null, msg);  So there you have it. This technique should, at least, allow you to control the dialog sizing just enough to stop really objectionable whitespace or scrollbars. 1 Don't worry if you don't get the reference, lest's just say my kids watch too many adverts.

    Read the article

  • What is the Coded UI feature of VS2010 and VS2012?

    - by TATWORTH
    A question recently arose as to what is coded UI? It is a feature of the ultimate and premium versions of Visual Studio 2012 (and 2010).It is described as "Automate user interface tests to validate application UI"Here are some useful links about it:http://codedui101.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/what-is-codedui.htmlhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/ee957688.aspxhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd286726.aspxhttp://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/comparehttp://www.dotnetcurry.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=798http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/kmcgrath/Introduction-to-Creating-Coded-UI-Tests-with-Visual-Studio-2010

    Read the article

  • What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

    - by Mr_E
    I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • NUnit SetUp and TearDown

    - by Lijo
    I have some experience in MS Test but new to NUnit. Whether NUnit [Setup] is corresponding to [ClassInitialize] or [TestInitialize] in MS Test? What is the NUnit attribute corresponding to [TestInitialize]? REFERENCE: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1873191/testinitialize-gets-fired-for-every-test-in-my-visual-studio-unit-tests http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4602288/nunit-testcontext-currentcontext-test-not-working

    Read the article

  • Service to test app on all the iPhones?

    - by David
    I have some developers creating an iPhone app, often the app will not work on one type of iPhone even though it worked on another one using the same version of iOS. Therefore, I am looking for a service where I can test the app natively on all the iPhone versions running various versions of iOS. I would like to be able to interact with the iPhones myself, so that I know that a specific bug has actually been fixed before, pushing to App Store and waiting 9 days for the review before I can hear the sad news from customers. Googling got me nowhere. Do such services exist?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Where should I store and verify files manipulated by an app

    - by Alan W. Smith
    I'm working on a little Ruby script to move screenshots while renaming them based on a specific convention. I'll be writing tests to confirm the behavior. Ruby has lots of conventions for where to store files (e.g. the "spec" and "features" directories for RSpec and Cucumber, respectively), but I'm not finding best practices for storing files that will be acted upon by the tests. The same goes for a destination for the final copies of the files. So, the question in two parts is: Where should I store files that the test cases will use for a source input. Where should tests that need to write output files send them to.

    Read the article

  • Sounds Good...

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

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance tools discrepancies

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

    Read the article

  • How do functional languages handle a mocking situation when using Interface based design?

    - by Programmin Tool
    Typically in C# I use dependency injection to help with mocking; public void UserService { public UserService(IUserQuery userQuery, IUserCommunicator userCommunicator, IUserValidator userValidator) { UserQuery = userQuery; UserValidator = userValidator; UserCommunicator = userCommunicator; } ... public UserResponseModel UpdateAUserName(int userId, string userName) { var result = UserValidator.ValidateUserName(userName) if(result.Success) { var user = UserQuery.GetUserById(userId); if(user == null) { throw new ArgumentException(); user.UserName = userName; UserCommunicator.UpdateUser(user); } } ... } ... } public class WhenGettingAUser { public void AndTheUserDoesNotExistThrowAnException() { var userQuery = Substitute.For<IUserQuery>(); userQuery.GetUserById(Arg.Any<int>).Returns(null); var userService = new UserService(userQuery); AssertionExtensions.ShouldThrow<ArgumentException>(() => userService.GetUserById(-121)); } } Now in something like F#: if I don't go down the hybrid path, how would I test workflow situations like above that normally would touch the persistence layer without using Interfaces/Mocks? I realize that every step above would be tested on its own and would be kept as atomic as possible. Problem is that at some point they all have to be called in line, and I'll want to make sure everything is called correctly.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to write tests for legacy code when there is no time for a complete refactoring?

    - by is4
    I usually try to follow the advice of the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code. I break dependencies, move parts of the code to @VisibleForTesting public static methods and to new classes to make the code (or at least some part of it) testable. And I write tests to make sure that I don't break anything when I'm modifying or adding new functions. A colleague says that I shouldn't do this. His reasoning: The original code might not work properly in the first place. And writing tests for it makes future fixes and modifications harder since devs have to understand and modify the tests too. If it's GUI code with some logic (~12 lines, 2-3 if/else block, for example), a test isn't worth the trouble since the code is too trivial to begin with. Similar bad patterns could exist in other parts of the codebase, too (which I haven't seen yet, I'm rather new); it will be easier to clean them all up in one big refactoring. Extracting out logic could undermine this future possibility. Should I avoid extracting out testable parts and writing tests if we don't have time for complete refactoring? Is there any disadvantage to this that I should consider?

    Read the article

  • how to architect this to make it unit testable

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

    Read the article

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

    - by Adam W.
    While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >