Search Results

Search found 10342 results on 414 pages for 'biztalk testing'.

Page 12/414 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Best method to do A B testing across to subdomains

    - by Lior
    I want to do an A B test of an entire site for a new design and UX with only slight changes in content (a big brand site that has good Google rankings for many generic keywords. My idea of implementation is doing a 302 redirect to the new version (placing it on www1 subdomain) and allowing only user agents of known browsers to pass. The test version will have disallow all in the robots text. Will Google treat this favorably or do I have to use Google Website Optimizer (which will give me tracking headaches)?

    Read the article

  • Unit-testing code that relies on untestable 3rd party code

    - by DudeOnRock
    Sometimes, especially when working with third party code, I write unit-test specific code in my production code. This happens when third party code uses singletons, relies on constants, accesses the file-system/a resource I don't want to access in a test situation, or overuses inheritance. The form my unit-test specific code takes is usually the following: if (accessing or importing a certain resource fails) I assume this is a test case and load a mock object Is this poor form, and if it is, what is normally done when writing tests for code that uses untestable third party code?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

    - by Theomax
    I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC website which performs relatively complex calculations as one of its functions. This functionality was developed some time ago (before I started working on the website) and defects have occurred whereby the calculations are not being calculated properly (basically these calculations are applied to each user which has certain flags on their record etc). Note; these defects have only been observed by users thus far, and not yet investigated in code while debugging. My questions are: Because the existing unit tests all pass and therefore do not indicate that the defects that have been reported exist; does this suggest the original code that was implemented is incorrect? i.e either the requirements were incorrect and were coded accordingly or just not coded as they were supposed to be coded? If I use the TDD approach, would I disgregard the existing unit tests as they don't show there are any problems with the calculations functionality - and I start by making some failing unit tests which test/prove there are these problems occuring, and then add code to make them pass? Note; if it's simply a bug that is occurring that can be found while debugging the code, do the unit tests need to be updated since they are already passing?

    Read the article

  • Cheap server stress testing

    - by acrosman
    The IT department of the nonprofit organization I work for recently got a new virtual server running CentOS (with Apache and PHP 5), which is supposed to host our website. During the process of setting up the server I discovered that the slightest use of the new machine caused major performance problems (I couldn't extract tarballs without bringing it to a halt). After several weeks of casting about in the dark by tech support, it now appears to be working fine, but I'm still nervous about moving the main site there. I have no budget to work with (so no software or services that require money), although due to recent cut backs I have several older desktops that I could use if it helps. The site doesn't need to withstand massive amounts of traffic (it's a Drupal site just a few thousand visitors a day), but I would like to put it through a bit of it paces before moving the main site over. What are cheap tools that I can use to get a sense if the server can withstand even low levels of traffic? I'm not looking to test the site itself yet, just fundamental operation of the server.

    Read the article

  • Which PHP frameworks use in testing?

    - by EasyHB
    I am going to do a test/benchmark of some PHP frameworks. The main factor of comaparation will be a comunication with MySQL databases and CRUD operations with them. I'll also compare their documentation, comunity support, etc. So I made a list of some known frameworks and I'll be glad if someone can tell me which I should not use or which I forgot to include. Zend Framework CodeIgniter Symphony Yii Kohana Prado CakePHP Nette PhpBURN Akelos Recess Jelix DooPHP Qcodo Seagull Thx for every help.

    Read the article

  • Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

    - by DigitalMoss
    Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

    Read the article

  • Should developers be involved in testing phases?

    - by LudoMC
    Hi, we are using a classical V-shaped development process. We then have requirements, architecture, design, implementation, integration tests, system tests and acceptance. Testers are preparing test cases during the first phases of the project. The issue is that, due to resources issues (*), test phases are too long and are often shortened due to time constraints (you know project managers... ;)). So my question is simple: should developers be involved in the tests phases and isn't it too 'dangerous'. I'm afraid it will give the project managers a false feeling of better quality as the work has been done but would the added man.days be of any value? I'm not really confident of developers doing tests (no offense here but we all know it's quite hard to break in a few clicks what you have made in severals days). Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (*) For obscure reasons, increasing the number of testers is not an option as of today. (Just upfront, it's not a duplicate of Should programmers help testers in designing tests? which talks about test preparation and not test execution, where we avoid the implication of developers)

    Read the article

  • DRY, string, and unit testing

    - by Rodrigue
    I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

    Read the article

  • Testing my model for hybrid scheduling in Embedded Systems

    - by markusian
    I am working on a project for school, where I have to analyze the performances of a few fixed-priority servers algorithms (polling server, deferrable server, priority exchange) using a simulator in the case of hybrid scheduling, where we have both hard periodic tasks and soft aperiodic tasks. In my model I consider that: the hard tasks have a period equal to their deadline, with a known worst case execution time (wcet). The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. the soft tasks have a known wcet and random interarrival times. The actual execution time could be smaller than the wcet. In order to test those algorithms I need realistic case studies. For this reason I'm digging in the scientific literature but I am facing different problems: Sometimes I find a list of hard tasks with wcet, but it is not specified how the soft tasks parameters are found. Given the wcet of a task, how can I model its actual execution time? This means, what random distribution should I use considering the wcet? How can I model the random interarrival times of soft aperiodic tasks?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing multiple conditions in an IF statement

    - by bwalk2895
    I have a chunk of code that looks something like this: function bool PassesBusinessRules() { bool meetsBusinessRules = false; if (PassesBusinessRule1 && PassesBusinessRule2 && PassesBusinessRule3) { meetsBusinessRules= true; } return meetsBusinessRules; } I believe there should be four unit tests for this particular function. Three to test each of the conditions in the if statement and ensure it returns false. And another test that makes sure the function returns true. Question: Should there actually be ten unit tests instead? Nine that checks each of the possible failure paths. IE: False False False False False True False True False And so on for each possible combination. I think that is overkill, but some of the other members on my team do not. The way I look at it is if BusinessRule1 fails then it should always return false, it doesn't matter if it was checked first or last.

    Read the article

  • Web Form Testing [closed]

    - by Frank G.
    I created a application for a client that is along the lines of a ticket tracking system. I wanted to know if anyone know of software that could beta test the web forms. Well I am looking for something that could automatically populate/fill whatever forms are on the web page with generic data. The purpose of this is to just randomly populate data and see if I get any errors on the page when submitted plus to also see how validation for the form functions. Does anyone know of anything that could do this?

    Read the article

  • What are some viable alternatives to BizTalk Server?

    - by Kilhoffer
    In evaluating different systems integration strategies, I've come across some words of encouragement, but also some words of frustration over BizTalk Server. What are some pros and cons to using BizTalk Server (both from a developer standpoint and a business user), and should companies also consider open source alternatives? What viable alternatives are out there? EDIT: Jitterbit seems like an interesting choice. Open Source and seems to be nicely engineered. Anyone on here have any experience working with it?

    Read the article

  • BizTalk mapping to excel

    - by rsapru
    Is there a way to convert or get the mapping from BizTalk map to an excel or a text file. From where we can directly see what field is mapped to what filed instead of following the lines. I have an BizTalk map which had around 600 fields mapped. any pointers will be really helpful.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk Server 2013 beta on Windows 8 (with Visual Studio 2012, SQL Server 2012 &amp; ESB Toolkit 2.2)

    - by Vishal
    Hello BizTalkers, Finally, Microsoft released the beta version of BizTalk Server 2010 R2 and now its called BizTalk Server 2013. I had tried the BTS 2010 R2 CTP version on Windows Azure VM and particularly I was excited about the RESTful services support and ESB fully integrated into BizTalk. Well didn’t get chance to test it much, Azure & VM running cost associated . Anyways, I was waiting for this announcement and I was so much glad that Microsoft finally released the on premise one.  Check what’s new in the BizTalk Server 2013.  Officially Microsoft says that BizTalk Server 2013 “beta” is not supported on Windows 8 but I was curious to try it out. Below is my installation and configuration experience. Virtual Machine configuration: VM Ware Workstation 9.0. Windows 8 Enterprise x64. SQL Server 2012. Visual Studio 2012 Ultimate. BizTalk Server 2013 beta. Windows 8 Machine name: WIN8 Local Administrator account name: Admin First I installed Windows 8 Enterprise on a VM Ware Workstation 9.0 and updated the OS. Even Windows 8 is the new release so luckily didn’t had much updates to perform. Next Installed Visual Studio 2012 Ultimate which was straightforward installation. Next Installed SQL Server 2012. Select New SQL Server stand-alone installation & followed the steps as shown in the screenshot below.   Once the installation is finished, fire up SQL Server Management Studio and try connecting. Initially when the management studio opened up, I thought why did Visual Studio 2010 open when I tried opening SQL Management studio but well, they made the interface alike VS 2010. Cool, I like it. Next is the real deal, download the BizTalk Server 2013 and unzip to particular folder. Double click the Setup.exe and follow the steps in the screenshots. Install Microsoft BizTalk Server 2013 beta. I selected all the normal artifacts and also all the artifacts under Additional Software's. So far so good. Next Launch BizTalk Server Configuration and I used Basic configuration as shown in screenshot below. Didn’t expect to see this but “wala”. Successful in the first shot. Still I wasn’t sure & something would have gone wrong so fired up the BizTalk Server Administration Console and that too came up just fine. Still was not able to believe so created a simple messaging application:  message in –> message out and that too worked just fine. Finally I was convinced that BizTalk Server 2013 did work on Windows 8. Next step was to install the ESB Toolkit 2.2 which is now integrated with BizTalk Server and does not come as a separate standalone installation file. Again run the BizTalk Setup.exe from the unzipped folder. Install Microsoft ESB Toolkit. Next, unlike ESB Configuration would  not open up by itself so go to “Windows 8 so called Start” (I could not resist to write this) and open the ESB Toolkit Configuration wizard. Below screenshot display the configurations I used. Also you can find them on MSDN here. Finally after the ESB Configuration, I open Admin Console and checked the 2 ESB application deployed. Cool. This concludes my experience about installation and configuration of BizTalk Server 2013 Beta & ESB Toolkit 2.2 on Windows 8. I will try and keep writing about BizTalk Server 2013 and its use with RESTful Services etc. Thanks, Vishal Mody

    Read the article

  • Isolating test data in acceptance tests

    - by Matt Phillips
    I'm looking for guidance on how to keep my acceptance tests isolated. Right now the issue I'm having with being able to run the tests in parallel is the database records that are manipulated in the tests. I've written helpers that take care of doing inserts and deletes before tests are executed, to make sure the state is correct. But now I can't run them in parallel against the same database without uniquely generating the test data fields for each test. For example. Testing creating a row i'll delete everything where column A = foo and column B = bar Then I'll navigate through the UI in the test and create a record with column A = foo and column B = bar. Testing that a duplicate row is not allowed to be created. I'll insert a row with column A = foo and column B = bar and then use the UI to try and do the exact same thing. This will display an error message in the UI as expected. These tests work perfectly when ran separately and serially. But I can't run them at the same time for fear that one will create or delete a record the other is expecting. Any tips on how to structure them better so they can be run in parallel?

    Read the article

  • Who should write the test plan?

    - by Cheng Kiang
    Hi, I am in the in-house development team of my company, and we develop our company's web sites according to the requirements of the marketing team. Before releasing the site to them for acceptance testing, we were requested to give them a test plan to follow. However, the development team feels that since the requirements came from the requestors, they would have the best knowledge of what to test, what to lookout for, how things should behave etc and a test plan is thus not required. We are always in an argument over this, and developers find it a waste of time to write down things like:- Click on button A. Key in XYZ in the form field and click button B. You should see behaviour C. which we have to repeat for each requirement/feature requested. This is basically rephrasing what's already in the requirements document. We are moving towards using an Agile approach for managing our projects and this is also requested at the end of each iteration. Unit and integration testing aside, who should be the one to come up with the end user acceptance test plan? Should it be the reqestors or the developers? Many thanks in advance. Regards CK

    Read the article

  • Automated Acceptance tests under specific contraints

    - by HH_
    This is a follow up to my previous question, which was a bit general, so I'll be asking for a more precise situation. I want to automate acceptance testing on a web application. Briefly, this application allows the user to create contracts for subscribers with the two constraints: You cannot create more than one contract for a subscriber. Once a contract is created, it cannot be deleted (from the UI) Let's say TestCreate is a test case with tests for the normal creation of a contract. The constraints have introduced complexities to the testing process, mainly dependencies between test cases and test executions. Before we run TestCreate we need to make sure that the application is in a suitable state (the subscriber has no contract) If we run TestCreate twice, the second run will fail since the state of the application will have changed. So we need to revert back to the initial state (i.e. delete the contract), which is impossible to do from the UI. More generally, after each test case we should guarantee that the state is reverted back. And since, in this case, it is impossible to do it from the UI, how do you handle this? Possible solution: I thought about doing a backup of the database in the state that I desire, and after each test case, run a script which deletes the db and restores the backup. However, I find that to be too heavy to do for each single test case. In addition, what if some information are stored in files? or in multiple or unaccessible databases? My question: In this situation, what would an experienced tester do to write automated and maintanable tests. Thank you. More info: I'm trying to integrate tests into a BDD framework, which I find to be a neat solution for test documentation and communication, but it does not solve this particular problem (it even makes it harder)

    Read the article

  • Writing Acceptance test cases

    - by HH_
    We are integrating a testing process in our SCRUM process. My new role is to write acceptance tests of our web applications in order to automate them later. I have read a lot about how tests cases should be written, but none gave me practical advices to write test cases for complex web applications, and instead they threw conflicting principles that I found hard to apply: Test cases should be short: Take the example of a CMS. Short test cases are easy to maintain and to identify the inputs and outputs. But what if I want to test a long series of operations (eg. adding a document, sending a notification to another user, the other user replies, the document changes state, the user gets a notice). It rather seems to me that test cases should represent complete scenarios. But I can see how this will produce overtly complex test documents. Tests should identify inputs and outputs:: What if I have a long form with many interacting fields, with different behaviors. Do I write one test for everything, or one for each? Test cases should be independent: But how can I apply that if testing the upload operation requires that the connect operation is successful? And how does it apply to writing test cases? Should I write a test for each operation, but each test declares its dependencies, or should I rewrite the whole scenario for each test? Test cases should be lightly-documented: This principles is specific to Agile projects. So do you have any advice on how to implement this principle? Although I thought that writing acceptance test cases was going to be simple, I found myself overwhelmed by every decision I had to make (FYI: I am a developer and not a professional tester). So my main question is: What steps or advices do you have in order to write maintainable acceptance test cases for complex applications. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Should we test all our methods?

    - by Zenzen
    So today I had a talk with my teammate about unit testing. The whole thing started when he asked me "hey, where are the tests for that class, I see only one?". The whole class was a manager (or a service if you prefer to call it like that) and almost all the methods were simply delegating stuff to a DAO so it was similar to: SomeClass getSomething(parameters) { return myDao.findSomethingBySomething(parameters); } A kind of boilerplate with no logic (or at least I do not consider such simple delegation as logic) but a useful boilerplate in most cases (layer separation etc.). And we had a rather lengthy discussion whether or not I should unit test it (I think that it is worth mentioning that I did fully unit test the DAO). His main arguments being that it was not TDD (obviously) and that someone might want to see the test to check what this method does (I do not know how it could be more obvious) or that in the future someone might want to change the implementation and add new (or more like "any") logic to it (in which case I guess someone should simply test that logic). This made me think, though. Should we strive for the highest test coverage %? Or is it simply an art for art's sake then? I simply do not see any reason behind testing things like: getters and setters (unless they actually have some logic in them) "boilerplate" code Obviously a test for such a method (with mocks) would take me less than a minute but I guess that is still time wasted and a millisecond longer for every CI. Are there any rational/not "flammable" reasons to why one should test every single (or as many as he can) line of code?

    Read the article

  • Resurrecting a 5,000 line test plan that is a decade old

    - by ale
    I am currently building a test plan for the system I am working on. The plan is 5,000 lines long and about 10 years old. The structure is like this: 1. test title precondition: some W needs to be set up, X needs to be completed action: do some Y postcondition: message saying Z is displayed 2. ... What is this type of testing called ? Is it useful ? It isn't automated.. the tests would have to be handed to some unlucky person to run through and then the results would have to be given to development. It doesn't seem efficient. Is it worth modernising this method of testing (removing tests for removed features, updating tests where different postconditions happen, ...) or would a whole different approach be more appropriate ? We plan to start unit tests but the software requires so much work to actually get 'units' to test - there are no units at present ! Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Understanding how software testing works and what to test.

    - by RHaguiuda
    Intro: I've seen lots of topics here on SO about software testing and other terms I don't understand. Problem: As a beginner developer I, unfortunately, have no idea how software testing works, not even how to test a simple function. This is a shame, but thats the truth. I also hope this question can help others beginners developers too. Question: Can you help me to understand this subject a little bit more? Maybe some questions to start would help: When I develop a function, how should I test it? For example: when working with a sum function, should I test every input value possible or just some limits? How about testing functions with strings as parameters? In a big program, do I have to test every single piece of code of it? When you guys program do you test every code written? How automated test works and how can I try one? How tools for automated testing works and what they do? I`ve heard about unit testing. Can I have a brief explanation on this? What is a testing framework? If possible please post some code with examples to clarify the ideas. Any help on this topic is very welcome! Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How fast are my services? Comparing basicHttpBinding and ws2007HttpBinding using the SO-Aware Test Workbench

    - by gsusx
    When working on real world WCF solutions, we become pretty aware of the performance implications of the binding and behavior configuration of WCF services. However, whether it’s a known fact the different binding and behavior configurations have direct reflections on the performance of WCF services, developers often struggle to figure out the real performance behavior of the services. We can attribute this to the lack of tools for correctly testing the performance characteristics of WCF services...(read more)

    Read the article

  • BizTalk Cross Reference Data Management Strategy

    - by charlie.mott
    Article Source: http://geekswithblogs.net/charliemott This article describes an approach to the management of cross reference data for BizTalk.  Some articles about the BizTalk Cross Referencing features can be found here: http://home.comcast.net/~sdwoodgate/xrefseed.zip http://geekswithblogs.net/michaelstephenson/archive/2006/12/24/101995.aspx http://geekswithblogs.net/charliemott/archive/2009/04/20/value-vs.id-cross-referencing-in-biztalk.aspx Options Current options to managing this data include: Maintaining xml files in the format that can be used by the out-of-the-box BTSXRefImport.exe utility. Use of user interfaces that have been developed to manage this data: BizTalk Cross Referencing Tool XRef XML Creation Tool However, there are the following issues with the above options: The 'BizTalk Cross Referencing Tool' requires a separate database to manage.  The 'XRef XML Creation' tool has no means of persisting the data settings. The 'BizTalk Cross Referencing tool' generates integers in the common id field. I prefer to use a string (e.g. acme.country.uk). This is more readable. (see naming conventions below). Both UI tools continue to use BTSXRefImport.exe.  This utility replaces all xref data. This can be a problem in continuous integration environments that support multiple clients or BizTalk target instances.  If you upload the data for one client it would destroy the data for another client.  Yet in TFS where builds run concurrently, this would break unit tests. Alternative Approach In response to these issues, I instead use simple SQL scripts to directly populate the BizTalkMgmtDb xref tables combined with a data namepacing strategy to isolate client data. Naming Conventions All data keys use namespace prefixing.  The pattern will be <companyName>.<data Type>.  The naming conventions will be to use lower casing for all items.  The data must follow this pattern to isolate it from other company cross-reference data.  The table below shows some sample data. (Note: this data uses the 'ID' cross-reference tables.  the same principles apply for the 'value' cross-referencing tables). Table.Field Description Sample Data xref_AppType.appType Application Types acme.erp acme.portal acme.assetmanagement xref_AppInstance.appInstance Application Instances (each will have a corresponding application type). acme.dynamics.ax acme.dynamics.crm acme.sharepoint acme.maximo xref_IDXRef.idXRef Holds the cross reference data types. acme.taxcode acme.country xref_IDXRefData.CommonID Holds each cross reference type value used by the canonical schemas. acme.vatcode.exmpt acme.vatcode.std acme.country.usa acme.country.uk xref_IDXRefData.AppID This holds the value for each application instance and each xref type. GBP USD SQL Scripts The data to be stored in the BizTalkMgmtDb xref tables will be managed by SQL scripts stored in a database project in the visual studio solution. File(s) Description Build.cmd A sqlcmd script to deploy data by running the SQL scripts below.  (This can be run as part of the MSBuild process).   acme.purgexref.sql SQL script to clear acme.* data from the xref tables.  As such, this will not impact data for any other company. acme.applicationInstances.sql   SQL script to insert application type and application instance data.   acme.vatcode.sql acme.country.sql etc ...  There will be a separate SQL script to insert each cross-reference data type and application specific values for these types.

    Read the article

  • BizTalk 2010 upgrade - Sunset Development/Deployment Modes

    - by Ahsan Alam
    Those who are familiar with BizTalk 2006, should know about Development and Deployment modes in Visual Studio. Personally, I never questioned why it's not Debug and Release just like everything else in Visual Studio. Then everything changed in BizTalk 2010. BizTalk and Visual Studio 2010 now uses Debug and Release modes by default. When we upgraded BizTalk 2006 solution to 2010, Development and Deployment modes remained unchanged for all the projects, and code compiled without any issues. Soon, I realized that any new projects added to the converted solutions started using Debug and Release modes. This also didn't cause any problem compiling the solution from Visual Studio; however, it broke our custom build/deployment scripts since the scripts were trying to build in Deployment mode. So, I decided to change all projects from Development and Deployment modes to Debug and Release modes to keep them consistent. During this process I realized that Debug and Release modes are defaults; but it's completely customizable. During the BizTalk 2010 upgrade process, I figured that switching to default Debug and Release modes are the best options.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >