Search Results

Search found 42756 results on 1711 pages for 'model based testing'.

Page 15/1711 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • SQL University: What and why of database testing

    - by Mladen Prajdic
    This is a post for a great idea called SQL University started by Jorge Segarra also famously known as SqlChicken on Twitter. It’s a collection of blog posts on different database related topics contributed by several smart people all over the world. So this week is mine and we’ll be talking about database testing and refactoring. In 3 posts we’ll cover: SQLU part 1 - What and why of database testing SQLU part 2 - What and why of database refactoring SQLU part 2 – Tools of the trade With that out of the way let us sharpen our pencils and get going. Why test a database The sad state of the industry today is that there is very little emphasis on testing in general. Test driven development is still a small niche of the programming world while refactoring is even smaller. The cause of this is the inability of developers to convince themselves and their managers that writing tests is beneficial. At the moment they are mostly viewed as waste of time. This is because the average person (let’s not fool ourselves, we’re all average) is unable to think about lower future costs in relation to little more current work. It’s orders of magnitude easier to know about the current costs in relation to current amount of work. That’s why programmers convince themselves testing is a waste of time. However we have to ask ourselves what tests are really about? Maybe finding bugs? No, not really. If we introduce bugs, we’re likely to write test around those bugs too. But yes we can find some bugs with tests. The main point of tests is to have reproducible repeatability in our systems. By having a code base largely covered by tests we can know with better certainty what a small code change can break in other parts of the system. By having repeatability we can make code changes with confidence, since we know we’ll see what breaks in other tests. And here comes the inability to estimate future costs. By spending just a few more hours writing those tests we’d know instantly what broke where. Imagine we fix a reported bug. We check-in the code, deploy it and the users are happy. Until we get a call 2 weeks later about a certain monthly process has stopped working. What we don’t know is that this process was developed by a long gone coworker and for some reason it relied on that same bug we’ve happily fixed. There’s no way we could’ve known that. We say OK and go in and fix the monthly process. But what we have no clue about is that there’s this ETL job that relied on data from that monthly process. Now that we’ve fixed the process it’s giving unexpected (yet correct since we fixed it) data to the ETL job. So we have to fix that too. But there’s this part of the app we coded that relies on data from that exact ETL job. And just like that we enter the “Loop of maintenance horror”. With the loop eventually comes blame. Here’s a nice tip for all developers and DBAs out there: If you make a mistake man up and admit to it. All of the above is valid for any kind of software development. Keeping this in mind the database is nothing other than just a part of the application. But a big part! One reason why testing a database is even more important than testing an application is that one database is usually accessed from multiple applications and processes. This makes it the central and vital part of the enterprise software infrastructure. Knowing all this can we really afford not to have tests? What to test in a database Now that we’ve decided we’ll dive into this testing thing we have to ask ourselves what needs to be tested? The short answer is: everything. The long answer is: read on! There are 2 main ways of doing tests: Black box and White box testing. Black box testing means we have no idea how the system internals are built and we only have access to it’s inputs and outputs. With it we test that the internal changes to the system haven’t caused the input/output behavior of the system to change. The most important thing to test here are the edge conditions. It’s where most programs break. Having good edge condition tests we can be more confident that the systems changes won’t break. White box testing has the full knowledge of the system internals. With it we test the internal system changes, different states of the application, etc… White and Black box tests should be complementary to each other as they are very much interconnected. Testing database routines includes testing stored procedures, views, user defined functions and anything you use to access the data with. Database routines are your input/output interface to the database system. They count as black box testing. We test then for 2 things: Data and schema. When testing schema we only care about the columns and the data types they’re returning. After all the schema is the contract to the out side systems. If it changes we usually have to change the applications accessing it. One helpful T-SQL command when doing schema tests is SET FMTONLY ON. It tells the SQL Server to return only empty results sets. This speeds up tests because it doesn’t return any data to the client. After we’ve validated the schema we have to test the returned data. There no other way to do this but to have expected data known before the tests executes and comparing that data to the database routine output. Testing Authentication and Authorization helps us validate who has access to the SQL Server box (Authentication) and who has access to certain database objects (Authorization). For desktop applications and windows authentication this works well. But the biggest problem here are web apps. They usually connect to the database as a single user. Please ensure that that user is not SA or an account with admin privileges. That is just bad. Load testing ensures us that our database can handle peak loads. One often overlooked tool for load testing is Microsoft’s OSTRESS tool. It’s part of RML utilities (x86, x64) for SQL Server and can help determine if our database server can handle loads like 100 simultaneous users each doing 10 requests per second. SQL Profiler can also help us here by looking at why certain queries are slow and what to do to fix them.   One particular problem to think about is how to begin testing existing databases. First thing we have to do is to get to know those databases. We can’t test something when we don’t know how it works. To do this we have to talk to the users of the applications accessing the database, run SQL Profiler to see what queries are being run, use existing documentation to decipher all the object relationships, etc… The way to approach this is to choose one part of the database (say a logical grouping of tables that go together) and filter our traces accordingly. Once we’ve done that we move on to the next grouping and so on until we’ve covered the whole database. Then we move on to the next one. Database Testing is a topic that we can spent many hours discussing but let this be a nice intro to the world of database testing. See you in the next post.

    Read the article

  • Regression testing for firewall changes

    - by James C
    We have a number of firewalls in place around our organisation and in some cases packets can pass through four levels of firewall limiting the flow TCP traffic. A concept that I'm used to from software testing is regression testing, allowing you to run a test suite against a changed application to verify that the new changes haven't affected any old features. Does anyone have any experience or an offer any solutions to being able to perform the same type of thing with firewall changes and network testing? The problem becomes a lot more complicated because you'd ideally want to be originating (and testing receipt) of packets across many machines.

    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

  • How can I test linkable/executable files that require re-hosting or retargeting?

    - by hagubear
    Due to data protection, I cannot discuss fine details of the work itself so apologies PROBLEM CASE Sometimes my software projects require merging/integration with third party (customer or other suppliers) software. these software are often in linkable executables or object code (requires that my source code is retargeted and linked with it). When I get the executables or object code, I cannot validate its operation fully without integrating it with my system. My initial idea is that executables are not meant to be unit tested, they are meant to be linkable with other system, but what is the guarantee that post-linkage and integration behaviour will be okay? There is also no sufficient documentation available (from the customer) to indicate how to go about integrating the executables or object files. I know this is philosophical question, but apparently not enough research could be found at this moment to conclude to a solution. I was hoping that people could help me go to the right direction by suggesting approaches. To start, I have found out that Avionics OEM software is often rehosted and retargeted by third parties e.g. simulator makers. I wonder how they test them. Surely, the source code will not be supplied due to IPR rgulations. UPDATE I have received reasonable and very useful suggestions regarding this area. My current struggle has shifted into testing 3rd party OBJECT code that needs to be linked with my own source code (retargeted) on my host machine. How can I even test object code? Surely, I need to link them first to even think about doing anything. Is it the post-link behaviour that needs to be determined and scripted (using perl,Tcl, etc.) so that inputs and outputs could be verified? No clue!! :( thanks,

    Read the article

  • How to verify the code that could take a substantial time to compile? [on hold]

    - by user18404
    As a follow up to my prev question: What is the best aproach for coding in a slow compilation environment To recap: I am stuck with a large software system with which a TDD ideology of "test often" does not work. And to make it even worse the features like pre-compiled headers/multi-threaded compilation/incremental linking, etc is not available to me - hence I think that the best way out would be to add the extensive logging into the system and to start "coding in large chunks", which I understand as code for a two-three hours first (as opposed to 15-20 mins in TDD) - thoroughly eyeball the code for a 15 minutes and only after all that do the compilation and run the tests. As I have been doing TDD for a quite a while, my code eyeballing / code verification skills got rusty (you don't really need this that much if you can quickly verify what you've done in 5 seconds by running a test or two) - so I am after a recommendations on how to learn these source code verification/error spotting skills again. I know I was able to do that easily some 5-10 years ago when I din't have much support from the compiler/unit testing tools I had until recently, thus there should be a way to get back to the basics.

    Read the article

  • Testing subpackage modules in Python 3

    - by Mitchell Model
    I have been experimenting with various uses of hierarchies like this and the differences between absolute and relative imports, and can't figure out how to do routine things with the package, subpackages, and modules without simply putting everything on sys.path. I have a two-level package hierarchy: MyApp __init__.py Application __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... Domain __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... UI __init__.py Module1 Module2 ... I want to be able to do the following: Run test code in a Module's "if main" when the module imports from other modules in the same directory. Have one or more test code modules in each subpackage that runs unit tests on the modules in the subpackage. Have a set of unit tests that reside in someplace reasonable, but outside the subpackages, either in a sibling package, at the top-level package, or outside the top-level package (though all these might end up doing is running the tests in each subpackage) "Enter" the structure from any of the three subpackage levels, e.g. run code that just uses Domain modules, run code that just uses Application modules, but Application uses code from both Application and Domain modules, and run code from GUI uses code from both GUI and Application; for instance, Application test code would import Application modules but not Domain modules. After developing the bulk of the code without subpackages, continue developing and testing after organizing the modules into this hierarchy. I know how to use relative imports so that external code that puts MyApp on its sys.path can import MyApp, import any subpackages it wants, and import things from their modules, while the modules in each subpackage can import other modules from the same subpackage or from sibling packages. However, the development needs listed above seem incompatible with subpackage structuring -- in other words, I can't have it both ways: a well-structured multi-level package hierarchy used from the outside and also used from within, in particular for testing but also because modules from one design level (in particular the UI) should not import modules from a design level below the next one down. Sorry for the long essay, but I think it fairly represents the struggles a lot of people have been having adopting to the new relative import mechanisms.

    Read the article

  • Importing Multiple Schemas to a Model in Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler

    - by thatjeffsmith
    Your physical data model might stretch across multiple Oracle schemas. Or maybe you just want a single diagram containing tables, views, etc. spanning more than a single user in the database. The process for importing a data dictionary is the same, regardless if you want to suck in objects from one schema, or many schemas. Let’s take a quick look at how to get started with a data dictionary import. I’m using Oracle SQL Developer in this example. The process is nearly identical in Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler – the only difference being you’ll use the ‘File’ menu to get started versus the ‘File – Data Modeler’ menu in SQL Developer. Remember, the functionality is exactly the same whether you use SQL Developer or SQL Developer Data Modeler when it comes to the data modeling features – you’ll just have a cleaner user interface in SQL Developer Data Modeler. Importing a Data Dictionary to a Model You’ll want to open or create your model first. You can import objects to an existing or new model. The easiest way to get started is to simply open the ‘Browser’ under the View menu. The Browser allows you to navigate your open designs/models You’ll see an ‘Untitled_1′ model by default. I’ve renamed mine to ‘hr_sh_scott_demo.’ Now go back to the File menu, and expand the ‘Data Modeler’ section, and select ‘Import – Data Dictionary.’ This is a fancy way of saying, ‘suck objects out of the database into my model’ Connect! If you haven’t already defined a connection to the database you want to reverse engineer, you’ll need to do that now. I’m going to assume you already have that connection – so select it, and hit the ‘Next’ button. Select the Schema(s) to be imported Select one or more schemas you want to import The schemas selected on this page of the wizard will dictate the lists of tables, views, synonyms, and everything else you can choose from in the next wizard step to import. For brevity, I have selected ALL tables, views, and synonyms from 3 different schemas: HR SCOTT SH Once I hit the ‘Finish’ button in the wizard, SQL Developer will interrogate the database and add the objects to our model. The Big Model and the 3 Little Models I can now see ALL of the objects I just imported in the ‘hr_sh_scott_demo’ relational model in my design tree, and in my relational diagram. Quick Tip: Oracle SQL Developer calls what most folks think of as a ‘Physical Model’ the ‘Relational Model.’ Same difference, mostly. In SQL Developer, a Physical model allows you to define partitioning schemes, advanced storage parameters, and add your PL/SQL code. You can have multiple physical models per relational models. For example I might have a 4 Node RAC in Production that uses partitioning, but in test/dev, only have a single instance with no partitioning. I can have models for both of those physical implementations. The list of tables in my relational model Wouldn’t it be nice if I could segregate the objects based on their schema? Good news, you can! And it’s done by default Several of you might already know where I’m going with this – SUBVIEWS. You can easily create a ‘SubView’ by selecting one or more objects in your model or diagram and add them to a new SubView. SubViews are just mini-models. They contain a subset of objects from the main model. This is very handy when you want to break your model into smaller, more digestible parts. The model information is identical across the model and subviews, so you don’t have to worry about making a change in one place and not having it propagate across your design. SubViews can be used as filters when you create reports and exports as well. So instead of generating a PDF for everything, just show me what’s in my ‘ABC’ subview. But, I don’t want to do any work! Remember, I’m really lazy. More good news – it’s already done by default! The schemas are automatically used to create default SubViews Auto-Navigate to the Object in the Diagram In the subview tree node, right-click on the object you want to navigate to. You can ask to be taken to the main model view or to the SubView location. If you haven’t already opened the SubView in the diagram, it will be automatically opened for you. The SubView diagram only contains the objects from that SubView Your SubView might still be pretty big, many dozens of objects, so don’t forget about the ‘Navigator‘ either! In summary, use the ‘Import’ feature to add existing database objects to your model. If you import from multiple schemas, take advantage of the default schema based SubViews to help you manage your models! Sometimes less is more!

    Read the article

  • Backbone Model fetched from Lithium controller is not loaded properly in bb Model

    - by Nilesh Kale
    I'm using backbone.js and Lithium. I'm fetching a model from the server by passing in a _id that is received as a hidden parameter on the page. The database MongoDB has stored the data correctly and can be viewed from console as: { "_id" : ObjectId("50bb82694fbe3de417000001"), "holiday_name" : "SHREE15", "description": "", "star_rating" : "3", "holiday_type" : "family", "rooms" : "1", "adults" : "2", "child" :"0", "emails" : "" } The Lithium Model class is so: class Holidays extends \lithium\data\Model { public $validates = array( 'holiday_name' => array( array( 'notEmpty', 'required' => true, 'message' => 'Please key-in a holiday name! (eg. Family trip for summer holidays)' ))); } The backbone Holiday model is so: window.app.IHoliday = Backbone.Model.extend({ urlRoot: HOLIDAY_URL, idAttribute: "_id", id: "_id", // Default attributes for the holiday. defaults: { }, // Ensure that each todo created has `title`. initialize: function(props) { }, The code for backbone/fetch is: var Holiday = new window.app.IHoliday({ _id: holiday_id }); Holiday.fetch( { success: function(){ alert('Holiday fetched:' + JSON.stringify(Holiday)); console.log('HOLIDAY Fetched: \n' + JSON.stringify(Holiday)); console.log('Holiday name:' + Holiday.get('holiday_name')); } } ); Lithium Controller Code is: public function load($holiday_id) { $Holiday = Holidays::find($holiday_id); return compact('Holiday'); } PROBLEM: The output of the backbone model fetched from server is as below and the Holiday model is not correctly 'formed' when data returns into backbone Model: HOLIDAY Fetched: {"_id":"50bb82694fbe3de417000001","Holiday":{"_id":"50bb82694fbe3de417000001","holiday_name":"SHREE15","description":"","star_rating":"3","holiday_type":"family","rooms":"1","adults":"2","child":"0","emails":""}} iplann...view.js (line 68) Holiday name:undefined Clearly there is some issue when the data is passed/translated from Lithium and loaded up as a model into backbone Holiday model. Is there something very obviously wrong in my code?

    Read the article

  • Custom Model Binding of IEnumerable Properties in ASP.Net MVC 2

    - by Doug Lampe
    MVC 2 provides a GREAT feature for dealing with enumerable types.  Let's say you have an object with a parent/child relationship and you want to allow users to modify multiple children at the same time.  You can simply use the following syntax for any indexed enumerables (arrays, generic lists, etc.) and then your values will bind to your enumerable model properties. 1: <% using (Html.BeginForm("TestModelParameter", "Home")) 2: { %> 3: < table > 4: < tr >< th >ID</th><th>Name</th><th>Description</th></tr> 5: <% for (int i = 0; i < Model.Items.Count; i++) 6: { %> 7: < tr > 8: < td > 9: <%= i %> 10: </ td > 11: < td > 12: <%= Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Items[i].Name) %> 13: </ td > 14: < td > 15: <%= Model.Items[i].Description %> 16: </ td > 17: </ tr > 18: <% } %> 19: </ table > 20: < input type ="submit" /> 21: <% } %> Then just update your model either by passing it into your action method as a parameter or explicitly with UpdateModel/TryUpdateModel. 1: public ActionResult TestTryUpdate() 2: { 3: ContainerModel model = new ContainerModel(); 4: TryUpdateModel(model); 5:   6: return View("Test", model); 7: } 8:   9: public ActionResult TestModelParameter(ContainerModel model) 10: { 11: return View("Test", model); 12: } Simple right?  Well, not quite.  The problem is the DefaultModelBinder and how it sets properties.  In this case our model has a property that is a generic list (Items).  The first bad thing the model binder does is create a new instance of the list.  This can be fixed by making the property truly read-only by removing the set accessor.  However this won't help because this behaviour continues.  As the model binder iterates through the items to "set" their values, it creates new instances of them as well.  This means you lose any information not passed via the UI to your controller so in the examplel above the "Description" property would be blank for each item after the form posts. One solution for this is custom model binding.  I have put together a solution which allows you to retain the structure of your modelModel binding is a somewhat advanced concept so you may need to do some additional research to really understand what is going on here, but the code is fairly simple.  First we will create a binder for the parent object which will retain the state of the parent as well as some information on which children have already been bound. 1: public class ContainerModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder 2: { 3: /// <summary> 4: /// Gets an instance of the model to be used to bind child objects. 5: /// </summary> 6: public ContainerModel Model { get; private set; } 7:   8: /// <summary> 9: /// Gets a list which will be used to track which items have been bound. 10: /// </summary> 11: public List<ItemModel> BoundItems { get; private set; } 12:   13: public ContainerModelBinder() 14: { 15: BoundItems = new List<ItemModel>(); 16: } 17:   18: protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType) 19: { 20: // Set the Model property so child binders can find children. 21: Model = base.CreateModel(controllerContext, bindingContext, modelType) as ContainerModel; 22:   23: return Model; 24: } 25: } Next we will create the child binder and have it point to the parent binder to get instances of the child objects.  Note that this only works if there is only one property of type ItemModel in the parent class since the property to find the item in the parent is hard coded. 1: public class ItemModelBinder : DefaultModelBinder 2: { 3: /// <summary> 4: /// Gets the parent binder so we can find objects in the parent's collection 5: /// </summary> 6: public ContainerModelBinder ParentBinder { get; private set; } 7: 8: public ItemModelBinder(ContainerModelBinder containerModelBinder) 9: { 10: ParentBinder = containerModelBinder; 11: } 12:   13: protected override object CreateModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Type modelType) 14: { 15: // Find the item in the parent collection and add it to the bound items list. 16: ItemModel item = ParentBinder.Model.Items.FirstOrDefault(i => !ParentBinder.BoundItems.Contains(i)); 17: ParentBinder.BoundItems.Add(item); 18: 19: return item; 20: } 21: } Finally, we will register these binders in Global.asax.cs so they will be used to bind the classes. 1: protected void Application_Start() 2: { 3: AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas(); 4:   5: ContainerModelBinder containerModelBinder = new ContainerModelBinder(); 6: ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(ContainerModel), containerModelBinder); 7: ModelBinders.Binders.Add(typeof(ItemModel), new ItemModelBinder(containerModelBinder)); 8:   9: RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); 10: } I'm sure some of my fellow geeks will comment that this could be done more efficiently by simply rewriting some of the methods of the default model binder to get the same desired behavior.  I like my method shown here because it extends the binder class instead of modifying it so it minimizes the potential for unforseen problems. In a future post (if I ever get around to it) I will explore creating a generic version of these binders.

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • MS DPM 2007: Testing the Recovery for a Production Domain

    - by NewToDPM
    Hi everybody! MS DPM 2007 is a new technology in my company, and so am I to the product. We have a classic Microsoft domain with two DCs, Exchange 2007 and a couple Web/MS SQL servers. I have deployed DPM one month ago on the domain, and after fixing the various issues I got with the replicas inconsistence and adapting the schedule and retention range to the server storage pool size, I can say the backup system is working correctly (no errors) as of today. However, there is one problem: we did not attempt to restore from the backups yet, which is a big no-no of course. I'm not sure about the way I should handle this, my main concern being Exchange and the System State of the DCs. From my understanding, DPM can only protect AND restore data on a server which is part of the same domain as the backup server. If I restore the System State (containing Active Directory) and the Exchange Storage Groups on a testing server, I am afraid it would completely disturb the domain functioning (for example, having two primary DCs on the domain). I am thinking about building a second DPM server on a testing separate domain which would mirror the replicas and then restore it on testing servers from this new domain. Is it the right way to handle the data recovery testing? How did you do on your domain when you first deployed DPM? I'd be grateful for any link/documentation or advice. Thank you in advance for your help! EDIT: Two options seem possible so far: i. Create another DC/Exchange server in the alternate location; ii. Create a separate domain in the alternate location and setup a trust between this domain and the production one. The option i is certainly the best but implies setting up a secondary Exchange server, with a dedicated public IP address so that if Exchange #1 dies, we can still send emails with Exchange #2. I don't know how complex this can be and would need to discuss it with my colleagues. The option ii would only fit the testing purposes. My only question regarding this is: if my production and DPM servers are part of domain A, and there is a trust between domains A and B, can I restore a domain A content to any domain B server?

    Read the article

  • Should a model binder populate all of the model?

    - by Richard
    Should a model binder populate all of the model, or only the bits that are being posted? For example, I am adding a product in my system and on the form i want the user to select which sites the new product will appear on. Therefore, in my model I want to populate a collection called "AllAvailableSites" to render the checkboxes for the user to choose from. I also need to populate the model with any chosen sites on a post in case the form does not validate, and I need to represent the form showing the initial selections. It would seem that I should let the model binder set the chosen sites on the model, and (once in the controller method) I set the "AllAvailableSites" on the model. Does that sound right? It seems more efficient to set everything in the model binder but someone is suggesting it is not quite right. I am grateful for any advice; I have to say that all the MVC model binding help online seems to cite really simple examples, nothing complicated. Do I really need a GET and a POST version of a method? Can't they just take the same view model? Then I check in my model binder if it is a GET/POST, and populate all the model accordingly.

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails testing: How can I test or at the very least see a form_for's error_messages_for?

    - by williamjones
    I'm working on creating a tests, and I can't figure out why the creation of a model from a form_for is failing in the test but works in real browsers. Is there a straightforward way for me to see what the problems are in the model creation? Even better would be, is there a straightforward way for me to test the error outputs that I access via error_messages_for? In that case, I'd like to also add in tests that make sure that malformed forms are outputting the correct errors.

    Read the article

  • Testing + production server and syncing MySQL data

    - by Matthew
    I have a web application running on LAMP with a testing server and a production server. Is there a standard practice for keeping the data on the testing server in sync with the production server? The data on the testing server gets out of date pretty quick and I feel like there must be an easier way than just dumping the production server and copying it onto the testing server every so often. It's not important that the data is in total sync, just that the testing server represents the production enviornment as accurately as possible.

    Read the article

  • Agile SOA Governance: SO-Aware and Visual Studio Integration

    - by gsusx
    One of the major limitations of traditional SOA governance platforms is the lack of integration as part of the development process. Tools like HP-Systinet or SOA Software are designed to operate by models on which the architects dictate the governance procedures and policies and the rest of the team members follow along. Consequently, those procedures are frequently rejected by developers and testers given that they can’t incorporate it as part of their daily activities. Having SOA governance products...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How to create a link to Nintex Start Workflow Page in the document set home page

    - by ybbest
    In this blog post, I’d like to show you how to create a link to start Nintex Workflow Page in the document set home page. 1. Firstly, you need to upload the latest version of jQuery to the style library of your team site. 2. Then, upload a text file to the style library for writing your own html and JavaScript 3. In the document set home page, insert a new content editor web part and link the text file you just upload. 4. Update the text file with the following content, you can download this file here. <script type="text/javascript" src="/Style%20Library/jquery-1.9.0.min.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_layouts/sp.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function() { listItemId=getParameterByName("ID"); setTheWorkflowLink("YBBESTDocumentLibrary"); }); function buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,itemId) { var workflowLink =webRelativeUrl+"_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list="+listId+"&ID="+itemId+"&WorkflowName=Start Approval"; return workflowLink; } function getParameterByName(name) { name = name.replace(/[\[]/, "\\\[").replace(/[\]]/, "\\\]"); var regexS = "[\\?&]" + name + "=([^&#]*)"; var regex = new RegExp(regexS); var results = regex.exec(window.location.search); if(results == null){ return ""; } else{ return decodeURIComponent(results[1].replace(/\+/g, " ")); } } function setTheWorkflowLink(listName) { var SPContext = new SP.ClientContext.get_current(); web = SPContext.get_web(); list = web.get_lists().getByTitle(listName); SPContext.load(web,"ServerRelativeUrl"); SPContext.load(list, 'Title', 'Id'); SPContext.executeQueryAsync(setTheWorkflowLink_Success, setTheWorkflowLink_Fail); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Success(sender, args) { var listId = list.get_id(); var listTitle = list.get_title(); var webRelativeUrl = web.get_serverRelativeUrl(); var startWorkflowLink=buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,listItemId) $("a#submitLink").attr('href',startWorkflowLink); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Fail(sender, args) { alert("There is a problem setting up the submit exam approval link"); } </script> <a href="" target="_blank" id="submitLink"><span style="font-size:14pt">Start the approval process.</span></a> 5. Save your changes and go to the document set Item, you will see the link is on the home page now. Notes: 1. You can create a link to start the workflow using the following build dynamic string configuration: {Common:WebUrl}/_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list={Common:ListID}&ID={ItemProperty:ID}&WorkflowName=workflowname. With this link you will still need to click the start button, this is standard SharePoint behaviour and cannot be altered. References: http://connect.nintex.com/forums/27143/ShowThread.aspx How to use html and JavaScript in Content Editor web part in SharePoint2010

    Read the article

  • We are hiring (take a minute to read this, is not another BS talk ;) )

    - by gsusx
    I really wanted to wait until our new website was out to blog about this but I hope you can put up with the ugly website for a few more days J. Tellago keeps growing and, after a quick break at the beginning of the year, we are back in hiring mode J. We are currently expanding our teams in the United States and Argentina and have various positions open in the following categories. .NET developers: If you are an exceptional .NET programmer with a passion for creating great software solutions working...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Tellago & Tellago Studios at Microsoft TechReady

    - by gsusx
    This week Microsoft is hosting the first edition of their annual TechReady conference. Even though TechReady is an internal conference, Microsoft invited us to present a not one but two sessions about some our recent work. We are particularly proud of the fact that one of those sessions is about our SO-Aware service registry. We see this as a recognition to the growing popularity of SO-Aware as the best Agile SOA governance solution in the Microsoft platform. Well, on Tuesday I had the opportunity...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Class-Level Model Validation with EF Code First and ASP.NET MVC 3

    - by ScottGu
    Earlier this week the data team released the CTP5 build of the new Entity Framework Code-First library.  In my blog post a few days ago I talked about a few of the improvements introduced with the new CTP5 build.  Automatic support for enforcing DataAnnotation validation attributes on models was one of the improvements I discussed.  It provides a pretty easy way to enable property-level validation logic within your model layer. You can apply validation attributes like [Required], [Range], and [RegularExpression] – all of which are built-into .NET 4 – to your model classes in order to enforce that the model properties are valid before they are persisted to a database.  You can also create your own custom validation attributes (like this cool [CreditCard] validator) and have them be automatically enforced by EF Code First as well.  This provides a really easy way to validate property values on your models.  I showed some code samples of this in action in my previous post. Class-Level Model Validation using IValidatableObject DataAnnotation attributes provides an easy way to validate individual property values on your model classes.  Several people have asked - “Does EF Code First also support a way to implement class-level validation methods on model objects, for validation rules than need to span multiple property values?”  It does – and one easy way you can enable this is by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on your model classes. IValidatableObject.Validate() Method Below is an example of using the IValidatableObject interface (which is built-into .NET 4 within the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace) to implement two custom validation rules on a Product model class.  The two rules ensure that: New units can’t be ordered if the Product is in a discontinued state New units can’t be ordered if there are already more than 100 units in stock We will enforce these business rules by implementing the IValidatableObject interface on our Product class, and by implementing its Validate() method like so: The IValidatableObject.Validate() method can apply validation rules that span across multiple properties, and can yield back multiple validation errors. Each ValidationResult returned can supply both an error message as well as an optional list of property names that caused the violation (which is useful when displaying error messages within UI). Automatic Validation Enforcement EF Code-First (starting with CTP5) now automatically invokes the Validate() method when a model object that implements the IValidatableObject interface is saved.  You do not need to write any code to cause this to happen – this support is now enabled by default. This new support means that the below code – which violates one of our above business rules – will automatically throw an exception (and abort the transaction) when we call the “SaveChanges()” method on our Northwind DbContext: In addition to reactively handling validation exceptions, EF Code First also allows you to proactively check for validation errors.  Starting with CTP5, you can call the “GetValidationErrors()” method on the DbContext base class to retrieve a list of validation errors within the model objects you are working with.  GetValidationErrors() will return a list of all validation errors – regardless of whether they are generated via DataAnnotation attributes or by an IValidatableObject.Validate() implementation.  Below is an example of proactively using the GetValidationErrors() method to check (and handle) errors before trying to call SaveChanges(): ASP.NET MVC 3 and IValidatableObject ASP.NET MVC 2 included support for automatically honoring and enforcing DataAnnotation attributes on model objects that are used with ASP.NET MVC’s model binding infrastructure.  ASP.NET MVC 3 goes further and also honors the IValidatableObject interface.  This combined support for model validation makes it easy to display appropriate error messages within forms when validation errors occur.  To see this in action, let’s consider a simple Create form that allows users to create a new Product: We can implement the above Create functionality using a ProductsController class that has two “Create” action methods like below: The first Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-GET requests - and displays the HTML form to fill-out.  The second Create() method implements a version of the /Products/Create URL that handles HTTP-POST requests - and which takes the posted form data, ensures that is is valid, and if it is valid saves it in the database.  If there are validation issues it redisplays the form with the posted values.  The razor view template of our “Create” view (which renders the form) looks like below: One of the nice things about the above Controller + View implementation is that we did not write any validation logic within it.  The validation logic and business rules are instead implemented entirely within our model layer, and the ProductsController simply checks whether it is valid (by calling the ModelState.IsValid helper method) to determine whether to try and save the changes or redisplay the form with errors. The Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method calls within our view simply display the error messages our Product model’s DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject.Validate() method returned.  We can see the above scenario in action by filling out invalid data within the form and attempting to submit it: Notice above how when we hit the “Create” button we got an error message.  This was because we ticked the “Discontinued” checkbox while also entering a value for the UnitsOnOrder (and so violated one of our business rules).  You might ask – how did ASP.NET MVC know to highlight and display the error message next to the UnitsOnOrder textbox?  It did this because ASP.NET MVC 3 now honors the IValidatableObject interface when performing model binding, and will retrieve the error messages from validation failures with it. The business rule within our Product model class indicated that the “UnitsOnOrder” property should be highlighted when the business rule we hit was violated: Our Html.ValidationMessageFor() helper method knew to display the business rule error message (next to the UnitsOnOrder edit box) because of the above property name hint we supplied: Keeping things DRY ASP.NET MVC and EF Code First enables you to keep your validation and business rules in one place (within your model layer), and avoid having it creep into your Controllers and Views.  Keeping the validation logic in the model layer helps ensure that you do not duplicate validation/business logic as you add more Controllers and Views to your application.  It allows you to quickly change your business rules/validation logic in one single place (within your model layer) – and have all controllers/views across your application immediately reflect it.  This help keep your application code clean and easily maintainable, and makes it much easier to evolve and update your application in the future. Summary EF Code First (starting with CTP5) now has built-in support for both DataAnnotations and the IValidatableObject interface.  This allows you to easily add validation and business rules to your models, and have EF automatically ensure that they are enforced anytime someone tries to persist changes of them to a database.  ASP.NET MVC 3 also now supports both DataAnnotations and IValidatableObject as well, which makes it even easier to use them with your EF Code First model layer – and then have the controllers/views within your web layer automatically honor and support them as well.  This makes it easy to build clean and highly maintainable applications. You don’t have to use DataAnnotations or IValidatableObject to perform your validation/business logic.  You can always roll your own custom validation architecture and/or use other more advanced validation frameworks/patterns if you want.  But for a lot of applications this built-in support will probably be sufficient – and provide a highly productive way to build solutions. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. In addition to blogging, I am also now using Twitter for quick updates and to share links. Follow me at: twitter.com/scottgu

    Read the article

  • SO-Aware sessions in Dallas and Houston

    - by gsusx
    Our WCF Registry: SO-Aware keeps being evangelized throughout the world. This week Tellago Studios' Dwight Goins will be speaking at Microsoft events in Dallas and Houston ( https://msevents.microsoft.com/cui/EventDetail.aspx?culture=en-US&EventID=1032469800&IO=ycqB%2bGJQr78fJBMJTye1oA%3d%3d ) about WCF management best practices using SO-Aware . If you are in the area and passionate about WCF you should definitely swing by and give Dwight a hard time ;)...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Do Repeat Yourself in Unit Tests

    - by João Angelo
    Don’t get me wrong I’m a big supporter of the DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) Principle except however when it comes to unit tests. Why? Well, in my opinion a unit test should be a self-contained group of actions with the intent to test a very specific piece of code and should not depend on externals shared with other unit tests. In a typical unit test we can divide its code in two major groups: Preparation of preconditions for the code under test; Invocation of the code under test. It’s in the first group that you are tempted to refactor common code in several unit tests into helper methods that can then be called in each one of them. Another way to not duplicate code is to use the built-in infrastructure of some unit test frameworks such as SetUp/TearDown methods that automatically run before and after each unit test. I must admit that in the past I was guilty of both charges but what at first seemed a good idea since I was removing code duplication turnout to offer no added value and even complicate the process when a given test fails. We love unit tests because of their rapid feedback when something goes wrong. However, this feedback requires most of the times reading the code for the failed test. Given this, what do you prefer? To read a single method or wander through several methods like SetUp/TearDown and private common methods. I say it again, do repeat yourself in unit tests. It may feel wrong at first but I bet you won’t regret it later.

    Read the article

  • Why some consider static analysis a testing and some do not?

    - by user970696
    Preparing myself also to ISTQB certification, I found they call static analysis actually as a static testing, while some engineering book distinct between static analysis and testing, which is the dynamic activity. I tent to think that static analysis is not a testing in the true sense as it does not test, it checks/verifies. But sure I would love to hear opinion of the true experts here. Thank you

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >