Search Results

Search found 11953 results on 479 pages for 'functional testing'.

Page 12/479 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Does functional programming mandate new naming conventions?

    - by Jakob
    I recently started studying functional programming using Haskell and came upon this article on the official Haskell wiki: How to read Haskell. The article claims that short variable names such as x, xs, and f are fitting for Haskell code, because of conciseness and abstraction. In essence, it claims that functional programming is such a distinct paradigm that the naming conventions from other paradigms don't apply. What are your thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • pitfalls/disadvantages of functional programming

    - by CrazyJugglerDrummer
    When would you NOT want to use functional programming? What is it not so good at? I am more looking for disadvantages of the paradigm as a whole, not things like "not widely used", or "no good debugger available". Those answers may be correct as of now, but they deal with FP being a new concept (an unavoidable issue) and not any inherent qualities. Related: pitfalls of object oriented programming advantages of functional programming

    Read the article

  • What is your favourite cleverly written functional code?

    - by sdcvvc
    What are your favourite short, mind-blowing snippets in functional languages? My two favourite ones are (Haskell): powerset = filterM (const [True, False]) foldl f v xs = foldr (\x g a -> g (f a x)) id xs v -- from Hutton's tutorial (I tagged the question as Haskell, but examples in all languages - including non-FP ones - are welcome as long as they are in functional spirit.)

    Read the article

  • functional test for rails controller private method

    - by mohit
    I have a private method in my controller. which is used for some database update. this method i am calling from another controller method. and it works fine. But when i am trying to write a test case for that method then It is tripping on accessing (session variable and params) in my functional all other methods are working fine the problem is only with private method? In my setup method in functional test, I am setting session also.?

    Read the article

  • functional test for rails controller privaet method

    - by mohit
    I have a private method in my controller. which is used for some database update. this method i am calling from another controller method. and it works fine. But when i am trying to write a test case for that method then It is tripping on accessing (session variable and params) in my functional all other methods are working fine the problem is only with private method? In my setup method in functional test, I am setting session also.?

    Read the article

  • Functional Programming Equivalent of Design Patterns Book?

    - by JasonFruit
    Is there a functional-programming equivalent to the Gang of Four Design Patterns book? That is, is there a book that explains and gives examples of how commonly-needed code structures are implemented functionally? I think seeing that would give me a better idea of how to go about using in practice the functional concepts whose theory I understand.

    Read the article

  • Imperative Programming v/s Declarative Programming v/s Functional Programming

    - by kaleidoscope
    Imperative Programming :: Imperative programming is a programming paradigm that describes computation in terms of statements that change a program state. In much the same way as the imperative mood in natural languages expresses commands to take action, imperative programs define sequences of commands for the computer to perform. The focus is on what steps the computer should take rather than what the computer will do (ex. C, C++, Java). Declarative Programming :: Declarative programming is a programming paradigm that expresses the logic of a computation without describing its control flow. It attempts to minimize or eliminate side effects by describing what the program should accomplish, rather than describing how to go about accomplishing it. The focus is on what the computer should do rather than how it should do it (ex. SQL). A  C# example of declarative v/s. imperative programming is LINQ. With imperative programming, you tell the compiler what you want to happen, step by step. For example, let's start with this collection, and choose the odd numbers: List<int> collection = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }; With imperative programming, we'd step through this, and decide what we want: List<int> results = new List<int>(); foreach(var num in collection) {     if (num % 2 != 0)           results.Add(num); } Here’s what we are doing: *Create a result collection *Step through each number in the collection *Check the number, if it's odd, add it to the results With declarative programming, on the other hand, we write the code that describes what you want, but not necessarily how to get it var results = collection.Where( num => num % 2 != 0); Here, we're saying "Give us everything where it's odd", not "Step through the collection. Check this item, if it's odd, add it to a result collection." Functional Programming :: Functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. It emphasizes the application of functions.Functional programming has its roots in the lambda calculus. It is a subset of declarative languages that has heavy focus on recursion. Functional programming can be a mind-bender, which is one reason why Lisp, Scheme, and Haskell have never really surpassed C, C++, Java and COBOL in commercial popularity. But there are benefits to the functional way. For one, if you can get the logic correct, functional programming requires orders of magnitude less code than imperative programming. That means fewer points of failure, less code to test, and a more productive (and, many would say, happier) programming life. As systems get bigger, this has become more and more important. To know more : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/602444/what-is-functional-declarative-and-imperative-programming http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb669144.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming   Technorati Tags: Ranjit,Imperative Programming,Declarative programming,Functional Programming

    Read the article

  • System requirement specification vs functional one - separate docs?

    - by user970696
    A lot of sources (e.g. Wikipedia) mentiones System requirement specification and Functional specification as two separate entities. However, Wiegers in his book writes: The software requirements specification is sometimes called a functional specification, a product specification... This is very confusing for me as I thought FS describes just functions while SRS whole system. From this point of view, FS would contain both non functional and functional requirements and everything else.

    Read the article

  • Is there a name for this functional programming construct/pattern?

    - by dietbuddha
    I wrote a function and I'd like to find out if it is an implementation of some functional programming pattern or construct. I'd like to find out the name of this pattern or construct (if it exists)? I have a function which takes a list of functions and does this to them: wrap(fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4) # returns partial(fn4, partial(fn3, partial(fn2, fn1))) There are strong similarities to compose, reduce, and other fp metaprogramming constructs, since the functions are being arranged together and returned as one function. It also has strong similarities to decorators and Python context managers since it provides a way to encapsulate pre and post execution behaviors in one function. Which was the impetus for writing this function. I wanted the ability that context managers provide, but I wanted to be able to have it defined in one function, and to be able to layer function after function on top.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't functional language syntax more close to human language?

    - by JohnDoDo
    I'm interested in functional programming and decided to get head to head with Haskell. My head hurts... but I'll eventually get it... I have one curiosity though, why is the syntax so cryptic (in lack of another word)? Is there a reason why it isn't more expressive, more close to human language? I understand that FP is good at modelling mathematical concepts and it borrowed some of it's concise means of expression, but still it's not math... it's a language.

    Read the article

  • Functional way to get a matrix from text

    - by Elazar Leibovich
    I'm trying to solve some Google Code Jam problems, where an input matrix is typically given in this form: 2 3 #matrix dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # all 3 elements in the first row 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 # each element is composed of three integers where each element of the matrix is composed of, say, three integers. So this example should be converted to #!scala Array( Array(A(1,2,3),A(4,5,6),A(7,8,9), Array(A(2,3,4),A(5,6,7),A(8,9,0), ) An imperative solution would be of the form #!python input = """2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 """ lines = input.split('\n') print lines[0] m,n = (int(x) for x in lines[0].split()) array = [] row = [] A = [] for line in lines[1:]: for elt in line.split(): A.append(elt) if len(A)== 3: row.append(A) A = [] array.append(row) row = [] from pprint import pprint pprint(array) A functional solution I've thought of is #!scala def splitList[A](l:List[A],i:Int):List[List[A]] = { if (l.isEmpty) return List[List[A]]() val (head,tail) = l.splitAt(i) return head :: splitList(tail,i) } def readMatrix(src:Iterator[String]):Array[Array[TrafficLight]] = { val Array(x,y) = src.next.split(" +").map(_.trim.toInt) val mat = src.take(x).toList.map(_.split(" "). map(_.trim.toInt)). map(a => splitList(a.toList,3). map(b => TrafficLight(b(0),b(1),b(2)) ).toArray ).toArray return mat } But I really feel it's the wrong way to go because: I'm using the functional List structure for each line, and then convert it to an array. The whole code seems much less efficeint I find it longer less elegant and much less readable than the python solution. It is harder to which of the map functions operates on what, as they all use the same semantics. What is the right functional way to do that?

    Read the article

  • Is functional GUI programming possible?

    - by eman
    I've recently caught the FP bug (trying to learn Haskell), and I've been really impressed with what I've seen so far (first-class functions, lazy evaluation, and all the other goodies). I'm no expert yet, but I've already begun to find it easier to reason "functionally" than imperatively for basic algorithms (and I'm having trouble going back where I have to). The one area where current FP seems to fall flat, however, is GUI programming. The Haskell approach seems to be to just wrap imperative GUI toolkits (such as GTK+ or wxWidgets) and to use "do" blocks to simulate an imperative style. I haven't used F#, but my understanding is that it does something similar using OOP with .NET classes. Obviously, there's a good reason for this--current GUI programming is all about IO and side effects, so purely functional programming isn't possible with most current frameworks. My question is, is it possible to have a functional approach to GUI programming? I'm having trouble imagining what this would look like in practice. Does anyone know of any frameworks, experimental or otherwise, that try this sort of thing (or even any frameworks that are designed from the ground up for a functional language)? Or is the solution to just use a hybrid approach, with OOP for the GUI parts and FP for the logic? (I'm just asking out of curiosity--I'd love to think that FP is "the future," but GUI programming seems like a pretty large hole to fill.)

    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

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