Search Results

Search found 4765 results on 191 pages for 'gh unit'.

Page 130/191 | < Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >

  • System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

    - by user970696
    After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

    Read the article

  • Go/Obj-C style interfaces with ability to extend compiled objects after initial release

    - by Skrylar
    I have a conceptual model for an object system which involves combining Go/Obj-C interfaces/protocols with being able to add virtual methods from any unit, not just the one which defines a class. The idea of this is to allow Ruby-ish open classes so you can take a minimalist approach to library development, and attach on small pieces of functionality as is actually needed by the whole program. Implementation of this involves a table of methods marked virtual in an RTTI table, which system functions are allowed to add to during module initialization. Upon typecasting an object to an interface, a Go-style lookup is done to create a vtable for that particular mapping and pass it off so you can have comparable performance to C/C++. In this case, methods may be added /afterwards/ which were not previously known and these new methods allow newer interfaces to be satisfied; while I like this idea because it seems like it would be very flexible (disregarding the potential for spaghetti code, which can happen with just about any model you use regardless). By wrapping the system calls for binding methods up in a set of clean C-compatible calls, one would also be able to integrate code with shared libraries and retain a decent amount of performance (Go does not do shared linking, and Objective-C does a dynamic lookup on each call.) Is there a valid use-case for this model that would make it worth the extra background plumbing? As much as this Dylan-style extensibility would be nice to have access to, I can't quite bring myself to a use case that would justify the overhead other than "it could make some kinds of code more extensible in future scenarios."

    Read the article

  • OpenGL sprites and point size limitation

    - by Srdan
    I'm developing a simple particle system that should be able to perform on mobile devices (iOS, Andorid). My plan was to use GL_POINT_SPRITE/GL_PROGRAM_POINT_SIZE method because of it's efficiency (GL_POINTS are enough), but after some experimenting, I found myself in a trouble. Sprite size is limited (to usually 64 pixels). I'm calculating size using this formula gl_PointSize = in_point_size * some_factor / distance_to_camera to make particle sizes proportional to distance to camera. But at some point, when camera is close enough, problem with size limitation emerges and whole system starts looking unrealistic. Is there a way to avoid this problem? If no, what's alternative? I was thinking of manually generating billboard quad for each particle. Now, I have some questions about that approach. I guess minimum geometry data would be four vertices per particle and index array to make quads from these vertices (with GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP). Additionally, for each vertex I need a color and texture coordinate. I would put all that in an interleaved vertex array. But as you can see, there is much redundancy. All vertices of same particle share same color value, and four texture coordinates are same for all particles. Because of how glDrawArrays/Elements works, I see no way to optimise this. Do you know of a better approach on how to organise per-particle data? Should I use buffers or vertex arrays, or there is no difference because each time I have to update all particles' data. About particles simulation... Where to do it? On CPU or on a vertex processors? Something tells me that mobile's CPU would do it faster than it's vertex unit (at least today in 2012 :). So, any advice on how to make a simple and efficient particle system without particle size limitation, for mobile device, would be appreciated. (animation of camera passing through particles should be realistic)

    Read the article

  • What's your most controversial programming opinion?

    - by Jon Skeet
    This is definitely subjective, but I'd like to try to avoid it becoming argumentative. I think it could be an interesting question if people treat it appropriately. The idea for this question came from the comment thread from my answer to the "What are five things you hate about your favorite language?" question. I contended that classes in C# should be sealed by default - I won't put my reasoning in the question, but I might write a fuller explanation as an answer to this question. I was surprised at the heat of the discussion in the comments (25 comments currently). So, what contentious opinions do you hold? I'd rather avoid the kind of thing which ends up being pretty religious with relatively little basis (e.g. brace placing) but examples might include things like "unit testing isn't actually terribly helpful" or "public fields are okay really". The important thing (to me, anyway) is that you've got reasons behind your opinions. Please present your opinion and reasoning - I would encourage people to vote for opinions which are well-argued and interesting, whether or not you happen to agree with them.

    Read the article

  • Changes to the LINQ-to-StreamInsight Dialect

    - by Roman Schindlauer
    In previous versions of StreamInsight (1.0 through 2.0), CepStream<> represents temporal streams of many varieties: Streams with ‘open’ inputs (e.g., those defined and composed over CepStream<T>.Create(string streamName) Streams with ‘partially bound’ inputs (e.g., those defined and composed over CepStream<T>.Create(Type adapterFactory, …)) Streams with fully bound inputs (e.g., those defined and composed over To*Stream – sequences or DQC) The stream may be embedded (where Server.Create is used) The stream may be remote (where Server.Connect is used) When adding support for new programming primitives in StreamInsight 2.1, we faced a choice: Add a fourth variety (use CepStream<> to represent streams that are bound the new programming model constructs), or introduce a separate type that represents temporal streams in the new user model. We opted for the latter. Introducing a new type has the effect of reducing the number of (confusing) runtime failures due to inappropriate uses of CepStream<> instances in the incorrect context. The new types are: IStreamable<>, which logically represents a temporal stream. IQStreamable<> : IStreamable<>, which represents a queryable temporal stream. Its relationship to IStreamable<> is analogous to the relationship of IQueryable<> to IEnumerable<>. The developer can compose temporal queries over remote stream sources using this type. The syntax of temporal queries composed over IQStreamable<> is mostly consistent with the syntax of our existing CepStream<>-based LINQ provider. However, we have taken the opportunity to refine certain aspects of the language surface. Differences are outlined below. Because 2.1 introduces new types to represent temporal queries, the changes outlined in this post do no impact existing StreamInsight applications using the existing types! SelectMany StreamInsight does not support the SelectMany operator in its usual form (which is analogous to SQL’s “CROSS APPLY” operator): static IEnumerable<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, IEnumerable<R>> collectionSelector) It instead uses SelectMany as a convenient syntactic representation of an inner join. The parameter to the selector function is thus unavailable. Because the parameter isn’t supported, its type in StreamInsight 1.0 – 2.0 wasn’t carefully scrutinized. Unfortunately, the type chosen for the parameter is nonsensical to LINQ programmers: static CepStream<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this CepStream<T> source, Expression<Func<CepStream<T>, CepStream<R>>> streamSelector) Using Unit as the type for the parameter accurately reflects the StreamInsight’s capabilities: static IQStreamable<R> SelectMany<T, R>(this IQStreamable<T> source, Expression<Func<Unit, IQStreamable<R>>> streamSelector) For queries that succeed – that is, queries that do not reference the stream selector parameter – there is no difference between the code written for the two overloads: from x in xs from y in ys select f(x, y) Top-K The Take operator used in StreamInsight causes confusion for LINQ programmers because it is applied to the (unbounded) stream rather than the (bounded) window, suggesting that the query as a whole will return k rows: (from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from x in win orderby x.A select x.B).Take(k) The use of SelectMany is also unfortunate in this context because it implies the availability of the window parameter within the remainder of the comprehension. The following compiles but fails at runtime: (from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from x in win orderby x.A select win).Take(k) The Take operator in 2.1 is applied to the window rather than the stream: Before After (from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from x in win orderby x.A select x.B).Take(k) from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from b in     (from x in win     orderby x.A     select x.B).Take(k) select b Multicast We are introducing an explicit multicast operator in order to preserve expression identity, which is important given the semantics about moving code to and from StreamInsight. This also better matches existing LINQ dialects, such as Reactive. This pattern enables expressing multicasting in two ways: Implicit Explicit var ys = from x in xs          where x.A > 1          select x; var zs = from y1 in ys          from y2 in ys.ShiftEventTime(_ => TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))          select y1 + y2; var ys = from x in xs          where x.A > 1          select x; var zs = ys.Multicast(ys1 =>     from y1 in ys1     from y2 in ys1.ShiftEventTime(_ => TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))     select y1 + y2; Notice the product translates an expression using implicit multicast into an expression using the explicit multicast operator. The user does not see this translation. Default window policies Only default window policies are supported in the new surface. Other policies can be simulated by using AlterEventLifetime. Before After xs.SnapshotWindow(     WindowInputPolicy.ClipToWindow,     SnapshotWindowInputPolicy.Clip) xs.SnapshotWindow() xs.TumblingWindow(     TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1),     HoppingWindowOutputPolicy.PointAlignToWindowEnd) xs.TumblingWindow(     TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)) xs.TumblingWindow(     TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1),     HoppingWindowOutputPolicy.ClipToWindowEnd) Not supported … LeftAntiJoin Representation of LASJ as a correlated sub-query in the LINQ surface is problematic as the StreamInsight engine does not support correlated sub-queries (see discussion of SelectMany). The current syntax requires the introduction of an otherwise unsupported ‘IsEmpty()’ operator. As a result, the pattern is not discoverable and implies capabilities not present in the server. The direct representation of LASJ is used instead: Before After from x in xs where     (from y in ys     where x.A > y.B     select y).IsEmpty() select x xs.LeftAntiJoin(ys, (x, y) => x.A > y.B) from x in xs where     (from y in ys     where x.A == y.B     select y).IsEmpty() select x xs.LeftAntiJoin(ys, x => x.A, y => y.B) ApplyWithUnion The ApplyWithUnion methods have been deprecated since their signatures are redundant given the standard SelectMany overloads: Before After xs.GroupBy(x => x.A).ApplyWithUnion(gs => from win in gs.SnapshotWindow() select win.Count()) xs.GroupBy(x => x.A).SelectMany(     gs =>     from win in gs.SnapshotWindow()     select win.Count()) xs.GroupBy(x => x.A).ApplyWithUnion(gs => from win in gs.SnapshotWindow() select win.Count(), r => new { r.Key, Count = r.Payload }) from x in xs group x by x.A into gs from win in gs.SnapshotWindow() select new { gs.Key, Count = win.Count() } Alternate UDO syntax The representation of UDOs in the StreamInsight LINQ dialect confuses cardinalities. Based on the semantics of user-defined operators in StreamInsight, one would expect to construct queries in the following form: from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from y in MyUdo(win) select y Instead, the UDO proxy method is referenced within a projection, and the (many) results returned by the user code are automatically flattened into a stream: from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() select MyUdo(win) The “many-or-one” confusion is exemplified by the following example that compiles but fails at runtime: from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() select MyUdo(win) + win.Count() The above query must fail because the UDO is in fact returning many values per window while the count aggregate is returning one. Original syntax New alternate syntax from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() select win.UdoProxy(1) from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from y in win.UserDefinedOperator(() => new Udo(1)) select y -or- from win in xs.SnapshotWindow() from y in win.UdoMacro(1) select y Notice that this formulation also sidesteps the dynamic type pitfalls of the existing “proxy method” approach to UDOs, in which the type of the UDO implementation (TInput, TOuput) and the type of its constructor arguments (TConfig) need to align in a precise and non-obvious way with the argument and return types for the corresponding proxy method. UDSO syntax UDSO currently leverages the DataContractSerializer to clone initial state for logical instances of the user operator. Initial state will instead be described by an expression in the new LINQ surface. Before After xs.Scan(new Udso()) xs.Scan(() => new Udso()) Name changes ShiftEventTime => AlterEventStartTime: The alter event lifetime overload taking a new start time value has been renamed. CountByStartTimeWindow => CountWindow

    Read the article

  • Verfication vs validation again, does testing belong to verification? If so, which?

    - by user970696
    I have asked before and created a lot of controversy so I tried to collect some data and ask similar question again. E.g. V&V where all testing is only validation: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-5-2005-68117.asp According to ISO 12207, testing is done in validation: •Prepare Test Requirements,Cases and Specifications •Conduct the Tests In verification, it mentiones. The code implements proper event sequence, consistent interfaces, correct data and control flow, completeness, appropriate allocation timing and sizing budgets, and error definition, isolation, and recovery. and The software components and units of each software item have been completely and correctly integrated into the software item Not sure how to verify without testing but it is not there as a technique. From IEEE: Verification: The process of evaluating software to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. [IEEE-STD-610]. Validation: The process of evaluating software during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements. [IEEE-STD-610] At the end of development phase? That would mean UAT.. So the question is, what testing (unit, integration, system, uat) will be considered verification or validation? I do not understand why some say dynamic verification is testing, while others that only validation. An example: I am testing an application. System requirements say there are two fields with max. lenght of 64 characters and Save button. Use case say: User will fill in first and last name and save. When checking the fields and Save button presence, I would say its verification. When I follow the use case, its validation. So its both together, done on the system as a whole.

    Read the article

  • What is the basic loadout for an open source web developer?

    - by DeveloperDon
    Thus far, I have mainly been an embedded developer, but I am interested in having the flexibility to do mobile and web development as well. I think my tools should include the following, but probably a lot more. LAMP stack. Java IDEs like Eclipse and IntelliJ. JS frameworks like Dojo, Node.JS, AngularJS, (is it better to mix or commit to one?). Cloud solutions like EC2 and Azure (again, ok to mix or better to commit to one?). Google APIs. Continuous integration server. Source control tools with Git for new work, SVN, CVS, +others for imports. FTP server. Unit test runners. Bug trackers. OOAD modeling tools or plug-ins? Graphic design tools? Hosting services. XML / JSON / other markup? Content management, SEO? I am also interested to know if there are tools where it might be better to mix, match, or support all available (maybe for source control) and others where the full focus should be on one (maybe Java vs. C# or Windows vs. Linux vs. MacOS). Perhaps some of these questions need context of whether the projects will be greenfield (just pick favorite) or maintenance (no choice, each project continues legacy, sometimes with a poor tools).

    Read the article

  • How do you structure your shared code so that it is "re-findable" for new developers?

    - by awmckinley
    I started working at my current job about 8 months ago, and its been one of the best experiences I've had as a young programmer. It's a small company, and both my co-developers are brilliant guys. One of the practices that they both have been encouraging is lots of code-reuse. Our code base is mainly C#, and we're using a centralized revision control system. The way the repository is currently structured, there is a single folder in which all shared class libraries are placed (along with unit tests for each library), and our revision control system allows for sharing or linking those libraries out to other projects. What I'm trying to understand at this point is how the current structure of the folder can be made more conducive for finding those libraries again. I've talked to the other developers about this, and they agree that it's gotten a little messy. I find that I am sometimes "reinventing the wheel" because I didn't realize that there was an existing piece of code that solved a particular problem. The issue is complicated further by the fact that we're sharing some code between ASP.NET MVC2, WinForms, and Windows CE projects, and sharing code between applications built against multiple versions of .NET. How do other people approach this? Is the answer in naming the libraries in a certain way or is it preferable to invest in some code-search software? Is the answer in doc comments? Should we be sharing libraries at all or should we simply branch the class libraries for re-use? Thanks for any and all help!

    Read the article

  • Tree Surgeon 2.0 - The future on the T4 Express

    - by Malcolm Anderson
    If you've never been a fan of TreeSurgeon (http://treesurgeon.codeplex.com/) then skip this post.However, if have been there have been some interesting developments over the last couple of years.The biggest one is T4Recently Bill Simser wrote a detailed post about the potential future of tree surgeon, called "Tree Surgeon - Alive and Kicking or Dead and Buried" He raised the question:Times have changed. Since that last release in 2008 so much has changed for .NET developers. The question is, today is the project still viable? Do we still need a tool to generate a project tree given that we have things like scaffolding systems, NuGet, and T4 templates. Or should we just give the project its rightful and respectful send off as its had a good life and has outlived its usefulness.For myself, the answer is, keep it.I've spent the last couple of years doing agile engineering coaching and architecture and from my experience, I can tell you, there are a lot of shops out there that would benefit from having Tree Surgeon as a viable product.  Many would benefit simply from having the software engineering information that is embedded in the tree surgeon site be floating around their conversation.Little things like, keep all of your software needed to run the build, with the build in the version control system.Have your developers and the build system using the same build.Have a one-touch buildSeparate your code from your interfacePut unit tests in first, not lastI've seen companies with great developers suffer from the problems that naturally come from builds taking 3 and 4 hours to run.  It takes work to get that build down to 10 minutes, but the benefits are always worth it.  Tree Surgeon gives you a leg up, by starting you off with a project that you can drop into your Continuous Integration system, right out of the box.Well, it used to be right out of the box.  Today, you have to play with the project to make it work for you, but even with the issues (it hasn't been updated since 2008) it still gives you a framework, with logical separations that you can build from.If you have used Tree Surgeon in the past, take a few minutes and drop a comment about what difference it made in your development style, and what you are doing differently today because of it.

    Read the article

  • Book Review: Professional ASP.Net MVC4

    - by Sam Abraham
    The past few weeks have been particularly busy as I continue to dedicate a bigger portion of my free time to refreshing my memory and enhancing my knowledge of best practices pertaining to technologies we plan on using for a major upcoming project. In this blog post, I will be providing a brief overview of my latest reading “Professional ASP.Net MVC4” by Jon Galloway, Phil Haack, Brad Wilson and K. Scott Allen. This book is a must read for web developers looking to enhance their MVC expertise with best practices and tips shared from recognized industry experts. This book takes the reader on a 16-chapter long journey towards being a better ASP.NET MVC developer with chapter 16 putting all information covered in practical context by dissecting the implementation of Nuget.org, a real-life open-source, ASP.NET MVC project.  All code samples referenced in this book are conveniently accessible via NuGet, a free, open-source Library package manager that installs as a Visual Studio Extension. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 thoroughly cover MVC’s various components: Controllers “C”, Views “V” and Models “M” respectively. Chapter 5 covers additional extension methods (Helpers) provided to speed and ease the use of common HTML elements such as forms, textboxes, grids, to name a few… Chapter 6 tackles built-in validation while providing examples and use cases on implementing custom validation that plugs into the MVC framework. Chapters 7 thru 13 discusses the latest on Membership, Ajax, Routing, NuGet and the ASP.Net Web API. Chapters 12 (Dependency Injection) and 13 (Unit Testing) demonstrate a big competitive advantage of MVC with its ease of test-ability and plug-ability. Chapters 14 and 15 targets the advanced developer showcasing how to extend MVC to customize and replace every piece in the framework.In conclusion, I strongly recommend Professional ASP.NET MVC 4 as an excellent read for both developers already using MVC as well as those getting started with the framework.   Many thanks to the Wiley/Wrox User Group Program for their support of our West Palm Beach Developers’ Group.  You can access my reviews of books I recently read: Professional ASP.NET Design Patterns Professional WCF 4.0 Inside Windows Communication Foundation Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2008 series

    Read the article

  • Algorithm to measure how "diffused" 5,000 pennies are in an economy?

    - by makerofthings7
    Please allow me to use this example/metaphor to describe an algorithm I need. Objects There are 5 thousand pennies. There are 50 cups. There is a tracking history (Passport "stamp" etc) that is associated with each penny as it moves between cups. Definition I'll define a "highly diffused" penny as one that passes through many cups. A "poorly diffused" penny is one that either passes back and forth between 2 cups Question How can I objectively measure the diffusion of a penny as: The number of moves the penny has gone through The number of cups the penny has been in A unit of time (day, week, month) Why am I doing this? I want to detect if a cup is hoarding pennies. Resistance from bad actors Since hoarding is bad, the "bad cup" may simply solicit a partner and simply move pennies between each other. This will reduce the amount of time a coin isn't in transit, and would skew hoarding detection. A solution might be to detect if a cup (or set of cups) are common "partners" with each other, though I'm not sure how to think though this problem. Broad applicability Any assistance would be helpful, since I would think that this algorithm is common to Economics The study of migration patterns of animals, citizens of a country Other natural occurring phenomena ... and probably exists as a term or concept I'm unfamiliar with.

    Read the article

  • Windows Phone 7 event

    - by Dennis Vroegop
    This might not be of interest to anyone living outside of the Netherlands, but I still wanted to share this. On march 10th the dutch .net usergroup dotNed (of which I am chairman) organizes a LAN party together with the company Sevensteps. Sevensteps is a big player in the Surface area: they are one of the few companies whose applications are part of the standard tools you get when you buy a Surface unit. They were also present at the CES in Las Vegas earlier this year to introduce the SUR40, as mentioned in my previous post. But they do not only develop software for the Surface, they also do a lot of interesting things on other platforms. One of these is Windows Phone 7, or WP7 in short. Sevensteps and dotNed have joined forces to organize a free full day event where we will develop a WP7 application. The people attending will be developers (experienced and not so experienced on WP7), designers and all other sorts of people you’d expect in a project team. The day will start around 9.00 am and will end when the app is finished. We will form teams of both experienced and not experienced developers so that we can learn from each other. Each team will have their own task to perform, and in the end all parts will be assembled to form a killer WP7 app. As with everything that dotNed does this event is free for everyone. Microsoft will pay for dinner, Sevensteps will provide the room, lunch and ideas (and their expertise of course) and the rest is up to us! So if you are in The Netherlands that date, and you feel like hanging out with other WP7 or wannabe WP7 developers, join us! For more information (in Dutch) see http://www.dotned.nl Tags van Technorati: wp7,dotned

    Read the article

  • Scaling along an arbitrary axis (Dealing with non-uniform scale)

    - by Jon
    I'm trying to build my own little engine to get more familiar with the concepts of 3D programming. I have a transform class that on each frame it creates a Scaling Matrix (S), a Rotation Matrix from a Quaternion (R) and concatenates them together (S*R). Once i have SR, I insert the translation values into the bottom of the three columns. So i end up with a transformation matrix that looks like: [SR SR SR 0] [SR SR SR 0] [SR SR SR 0] [tx ty tz 1] This works perfectly in all cases except when rotating an object that has a non-uniform scale. For example a unit cube with ScaleX = 4, ScaleY = 2, ScaleZ = 1 will give me a rectangular box that is 4 times as wide as the depth and twice as high as the depth. If i then translate this around, the box stays the same and looks normal. The problem happens whenever I try to rotate this scaled box. The shape itself becomes distorted and it appears as though the Scale factors are affecting the object on the World X,Y,Z axis rather than the local X,Y,Z axis of the object. I've done some pretty extensive research through a variety of textbooks (Eberly, Moller/Hoffman, Phar etc) and there isn't a ton there to go off of. Online, most of the answers say to avoid non-uniform scaling which I understand the desire to avoid it, but I'd still like to figure out how to support it. The only thing I can think off is that when constructing a Scale Matrix: [sx 0 0 0] [0 sy 0 0] [0 0 sz 0] [0 0 0 1] This is scaling along the World Axis instead of the object's local Direction, Up and Right vectors or it's local Z, Y, X axis. Does anyone have any tips or ideas on how to handle construction a transformation matrix that allows for non-uniform scaling and rotation? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • design in agile process

    - by ying
    Recently I had an interview with dev team in a company. The team uses agile + TDD. The code exercise implements a video rental store which generates statement to calc total rental fee for each type of video (new release, children, etc) for a customer. The existing code use object like: Statement to generate statement and calc fee where big switch statement sits to use enum to determine how to calc rental fee customer holds a list of rentals movie base class and derived class for each type of movie (NEW, CHILDREN, ACTION, etc) The code originally doesn't compile as the owner was assumed to be hit by a bus. So here is what I did: outlined the improvement over object model to have better responsibility for each class. use strategy pattern to replace switch statement and weave them in config But the team says it's waste of time because there is no requirement for it and UAT test suite works and is the only guideline goes into architecture decision. The underlying story is just to get pricing feature out and not saying anything about how to do it. So the discussion is focused on why should time be spent on refactor the switch statement. In my understanding, agile methodology doesn't mean zero design upfront and such code smell should be avoided at the beginning. Also any unit/UAT test suite won't detect such code smell, otherwise sonar, findbugs won't exist. Here I want to ask: is there such a thing called agile design in the agile methodology? Just like agile documentation. how to define agile design upfront? how to know enough is enough? In my understanding, ballpark architecture and data contract among components should be defined before/when starting project, not the details. Am I right? anyone can explain what the team is really looking for in this kind of setup? is it design aspect or agile aspect? how to implement minimum viable product concept in the agile process in the real world project? Is it must that you feel embarrassed to be MVP?

    Read the article

  • Supporting and testing multiple versions of a software library in a Maven project

    - by Duncan Jones
    My company has several versions of its software in use by our customers at any one time. My job is to write bespoke Java software for the customers based on the version of software they happen to be running. I've created a Java library that performs many of the tasks I regularly require in a normal project. This is a Maven project that I deploy to our local Artifactory and pull down into other Maven projects when required. I can't decide the best way to support the range of software versions used by our customers. Typically, we have about three versions in use at any one time. They are normally backwards compatible with one another, but that cannot be guaranteed. I have considered the following options for managing this issue: Separate editions for each library version I make a separate release of my library for each version of my company software. Using some Maven cunningness I could automatically produce a tested version linked to each of the then-current company software versions. This is feasible, but not without its technical challenges. The advantage is that this would be fairly automatic and my unit tests have definitely executed against the correct software version. However, I would have to keep updating the versions supported and may end up maintaining a large collection of libraries. One supported version, but others tested I support the oldest software version and make a release against that. I then perform tests with the newer software versions to ensure it still works. I could try and make this testing automatic by having some non-deployed Maven projects that import the software library, the associated test JAR and override the company software version used. If those projects build, then the library is compatible. I could ensure these meta-projects are included in our CI server builds. I welcome comments on which approach is better or a suggestion for a different approach entirely. I'm leaning towards the second option.

    Read the article

  • How to add a new developer to the team

    - by lortabac
    I run a small company composed of only 2 developers. For one of our clients we are building a very big application, whose development has gone on for 1.5 years. Now this client has found an important sponsorship, and they are organizing some events related to this project, so we have a deadline in 2 months and we can't miss it. We are thinking of adding a new developer to the team, and I am wondering what we can do to help his integration. This is the situation: We are approaching the threshhold of Brooks's law, the point when adding new developers will be counter-productive. The application is relatively well designed, but the implementation is chaotic in some points (especially older code). There are unit tests only for more recent code. When this project started, we didn't have the habit of doing tests. Documentation and comments are incomplete. The application is both large and complex. The client has written down almost every detail about his project, in a very clear and "programmer-friendly" way. Is it a good idea to add a person now? If so, what can we do in order to help the new developer integrate into the team?

    Read the article

  • Are R&D mini-projects a good activity for interns?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I'm going to be in charge of hiring some interns for our software department soon (automotive infotainment systems) and I'm designing an internship program. The main productive activity "menu" I'm planning for them consists of: Verification testing Writing Unit Tests (automated, with an xUnit-compliant framework [several languages in our projects]) Documenting Code Updating wiki Updating diagrams & design docs Helping with low priority tickets (supervised/mentored) Hunting down & cleaning compiler/run-time warnings Refactoring/cleaning code against our coding standards But I also have this idea that having them do small R&D projects would be good to test their talent and get them to have fun. These mini-projects would be: Experimental implementations & optimizations Proof of concept implementations for new technologies Small papers (~2-5 pages) doing formal research on the previous two points Apps (from a mini-project pool) These kinds of projects would be pre-defined and very concrete, although new ideas from the interns themselves would be very welcome. Even if a project is too big or is abandoned, the idea would also be to lay the ground work so they can be retaken by another intern or intern team. While I think this is good in concept, I don't know if it could be good in practice, as obviously this would diminish their productivity on "real work" (work with immediate value to the company), but I think it could help bring aboard very bright people and get them to want to stay in the future (which, I think, is the end goal for any internship program). My question here is if these activities are too open ended or difficult for the average intern to accomplish and if R&D is an efficient use of an interns time or if it makes more sense for to assign project work to interns instead.

    Read the article

  • TODO Formatting

    - by charlie.mott
    Article Source: http://geekswithblogs.net/charliemott TODO's should only be used for a short period of time to remind you that something needs to be done. They should then be addressed as soon as possible. In order to know who owns a TODO task and how long it’s been outstanding, my company uses the following standard for TODO formatting: Format:     // TODO : Owner Initials – Date Created – Description of task. Sample:     // TODO: CM – 2012/01/20 – Move this class to a new location so it can be reused. Using this pattern makes it easy to use the Resharper TODO explorer. The Carrot In order to make it easy for developers to apply this rule, a code snippet can be created in Visual Studio. Even better, I created a Resharper template. This gives the facility to use the current user name and current date macros. image This actually makes the formatting look like this. Sample:     // TODO: cmott – 2012/01/20 – Move this class to a new location so it can be reused. The Stick How to you enforce such a rule? I tried to create a custom Resharper Highlighting Pattern to perform custom code analysis inspection for deviations from this pattern. However, I did not have any success. The find dialog would not accept // text. If I work it out, I will update this blog post. StyleCop Instead I created a custom StyleCop rule. I followed the approach used with the StyleCop Contrib project. This provides a simple to use base class and easy to use unit testing framework. I will upload this todo format analyzer as a patch to that project. image

    Read the article

  • What can be the cause of new bugs appearing somewhere else when a known bug is solved?

    - by MainMa
    During a discussion, one of my colleagues told that he has some difficulties with his current project while trying to solve bugs. "When I solve one bug, something else stops working elsewhere", he said. I started to think about how this could happen, but can't figure it out. I have sometimes similar problems when I am too tired/sleepy to do the work correctly and to have an overall view of the part of the code I was working on. Here, the problem seems to be for a few days or weeks, and is not related to the focus of my colleague. I can also imagine this problem arising on a very large project, very badly managed, where teammates don't have any idea of who does what, and what effect on other's work can have a change they are doing. This is not the case here neither: it's a rather small project with only one developer. It can also be an issue with old, badly maintained and never documented codebase, where the only developers who can really imagine the consequences of a change had left the company years ago. Here, the project just started, and the developer doesn't use anyone's codebase. So what can be the cause of such issue on a fresh, small-size codebase written by a single developer who stays focused on his work? What may help? Unit tests (there are none)? Proper architecture (I'm pretty sure that the codebase has no architecture at all and was written with no preliminary thinking), requiring the whole refactoring? Pair programming? Something else?

    Read the article

  • Circle collision detection and Vector math: HELP?

    - by Griffin
    Hey so i'm currently going through the wildbunny blog to learn about collision detection, but i'm a bit confused on how the vectors he's talking about come into play QUOTED BLOG: p = ||A-B|| – (r1+r2) The two spheres are penetrating by distance p. We would also like the penetration vector so that we can correct the penetration once we discover it. This is the vector that moves both circles to the point where they just touch, correcting the penetration. Importantly it is not only just a vector that does this, it is the only vector which corrects the penetration by moving the minimum amount. This is important because we only want to correct the error, not introduce more by moving too much when we correct, or too little. N = (A-B) / ||A-B|| P = N*p Here we have calculated the normalised vector N between the two centres and the penetration vector P by multiplying our unit direction by the penetration distance. Ok so i understand that p is the distance each circle is penetrating each other, but i don't get what exactly N and P is. it seems to me N is just the coordinates of the 3rd point of the right trianlge formed by point A and B (A-B) then being divided by the hypotenuse of that triangle or distance between A and B (||A-B||) Whats the significance of this? Also, what is the penetration vector used for? It seems to me like a movement that one of the circles would perform to get un-penetrated.

    Read the article

  • When module calling gets ugly

    - by Pete
    Has this ever happened to you? You've got a suite of well designed, single-responsibility modules, covered by unit tests. In any higher-level function you code, you are (95% of the code) simply taking output from one module and passing it as input to the next. Then, you notice this higher-level function has turned into a 100+ line script with multiple responsibilities. Here is the problem. It is difficult (impossible) to test that script. At least, it seems so. Do you agree? In my current project, all of the bugs came from this script. Further detail: each script represents a unique solution, or algorithm, formed by using different modules in different ways. Question: how can you remedy this situation? Knee-jerk answer: break the script up into single-responsibility modules. Comment on knee-jerk answer: it already is! Best answer I can come up with so far: create higher-level connector objects which "wire" modules together in particular ways (take output from one module, feed it as input to another module). Thus if our script was: FooInput fooIn = new FooInput(1, 2); FooOutput fooOutput = fooModule(fooIn); Double runtimevalue = getsomething(fooOutput.whatever); BarInput barIn = new BarInput( runtimevalue, fooOutput.someOtherValue); BarOutput barOut = barModule(BarIn); It would become with a connector: FooBarConnectionAlgo fooBarConnector = new fooBarConnector(fooModule, barModule); FooInput fooIn = new FooInput(1, 2); BarOutput barOut = fooBarConnector(fooIn); So the advantage is, besides hiding some code and making things clearer, we can test FooBarConnectionAlgo. I'm sure this situation comes up a lot. What do you do?

    Read the article

  • How do I backup my customer's data?

    - by marcamillion
    If you run a SaaS app, or work on one, I would love to hear from you. Where the safety and security of your customer's data is paramount, how do you secure it and back it up? I would love to know your main host (e.g. Heroku, Engine Yard, Rackspace, MediaTemple, etc.) and who you use for your backup. Be as detailed as possible - e.g. a quick overview of your service and the data you store (images for instance), what happens with the images when the user uploads them (e.g. they go to your Linode VPS, and posted to the site for them to see - then they are automatically sent to AWS or wherever, then once a week they are backed up to tape by the managed hosting provider, and you also back them up to your house/office). If you could also give some idea as to what the unit cost (per GB/per user/per month) of storage is - on average, I would really appreciate that. Getting ready to launch my app, and I would love to get some more perspective on the nitty gritty details involved. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Please, tell us how you made Agile work for you?

    - by Paul
    I've been seeing many questions related to Agile. There seems to be confusion between the people who are doing Agile successfully, and those of us who don't understand it. So I'm wondering if some of the successful teams would be willing to give the result of us some examples of how you succeeded. Some of the things I know I wonder What steps did you use? (ie. Talk to users, mock up, tests, code, testing, (whatever)) Tools that helped you? Did you generate any artifacts, other than a working implementation? How did you prevent spaghetti architecture / code? How do you pass along to new team members, or is the team stable for the project How did you determine exit criteria, or was it open ended. (Scope of project?) Did you do this as contracting? How did you develop a contract up-front? Did the business do any up front work? Or did they come to the table with "We want to implement a "bleh bleh blah"? What types of tests did you use? Unit, Integration, UAT? Or did the process make some/all of those unnecessary? Bonus: Do you have an situations / links to "How To" Agile articles, books, etc? Wiki, describes what but not how (to the uninitiated) At least to me, not a duplicate

    Read the article

  • Extract all related class type aliasing and enum into one file or not

    - by Chen OT
    I have many models in my project, and some other classes just need the class declaration and pointer type aliasing. It does not need to know the class definition, so I don't want to include the model header file. I extract all the model's declaration into one file to let every classes reference one file. model_forward.h class Cat; typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> CatPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> CatConstPointerType; class Dog; typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> DogPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> DogConstPointerType; class Fish; typedef std::shared_ptr<Fish> FishPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Fish> FishConstPointerType; enum CatType{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} enum DogType{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} enum FishType{SHARK, OCTOPUS, SALMON} Is it acceptable practice? Should I make every unit, which needs a class declaration, depends on one file? Does it cause high coupling? Or I should put these pointer type aliasing and enum definition inside the class back? cat.h class Cat { typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> ConstPointerType; enum Type{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} ... }; dog.h class Dog { typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> ConstPointerType; enum Type{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} ... } fish.h class Fish { ... }; Any suggestion will be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Balancing dependency injection with public API design

    - by kolektiv
    I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >