Search Results

Search found 26978 results on 1080 pages for 'load testing'.

Page 2/1080 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Ajax-based data loading using jQuery.load() function in ASP.NET

    - by hajan
    In general, jQuery has made Ajax very easy by providing low-level interface, shorthand methods and helper functions, which all gives us great features of handling Ajax requests in our ASP.NET Webs. The simplest way to load data from the server and place the returned HTML in browser is to use the jQuery.load() function. The very firs time when I started playing with this function, I didn't believe it will work that much easy. What you can do with this method is simply call given url as parameter to the load function and display the content in the selector after which this function is chained. So, to clear up this, let me give you one very simple example: $("#result").load("AjaxPages/Page.html"); As you can see from the above image, after clicking the ‘Load Content’ button which fires the above code, we are making Ajax Get and the Response is the entire page HTML. So, rather than using (old) iframes, you can now use this method to load other html pages inside the page from where the script with load function is called. This method is equivalent to the jQuery Ajax Get method $.get(url, data, function () { }) only that the $.load() is method rather than global function and has an implicit callback function. To provide callback to your load, you can simply add function as second parameter, see example: $("#result").load("AjaxPages/Page.html", function () { alert("Page.html has been loaded successfully!") }); Since load is part of the chain which is follower of the given jQuery Selector where the content should be loaded, it means that the $.load() function won't execute if there is no such selector found within the DOM. Another interesting thing to mention, and maybe you've asked yourself is how we know if GET or POST method type is executed? It's simple, if we provide 'data' as second parameter to the load function, then POST is used, otherwise GET is assumed. POST $("#result").load("AjaxPages/Page.html", { "name": "hajan" }, function () { ////callback function implementation });   GET $("#result").load("AjaxPages/Page.html", function () { ////callback function implementation });   Another important feature that $.load() has ($.get() does not) is loading page fragments. Using jQuery's selector capability, you can do this: $("#result").load("AjaxPages/Page.html #resultTable"); In our Page.html, the content now is: So, after the call, only the table with id resultTable will load in our page.   As you can see, we have loaded only the table with id resultTable (1) inside div with id result (2). This is great feature since we won't need to filter the returned HTML content again in our callback function on the master page from where we have called $.load() function. Besides the fact that you can simply call static HTML pages, you can also use this function to load dynamic ASPX pages or ASP.NET ASHX Handlers . Lets say we have another page (ASPX) in our AjaxPages folder with name GetProducts.aspx. This page has repeater control (or anything you want to bind dynamic server-side content) that displays set of data in it. Now, I want to filter the data in the repeater based on the Query String parameter provided when calling that page. For example, if I call the page using GetProducts.aspx?category=computers, it will load only computers… so, this will filter the products automatically by given category. The example ASPX code of GetProducts.aspx page is: <%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="GetProducts.aspx.cs" Inherits="WebApplication1.AjaxPages.GetProducts" %> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head runat="server"> <title></title> </head> <body> <form id="form1" runat="server"> <div> <table id="tableProducts"> <asp:Repeater ID="rptProducts" runat="server"> <HeaderTemplate> <tr> <th>Product</th> <th>Price</th> <th>Category</th> </tr> </HeaderTemplate> <ItemTemplate> <tr> <td> <%# Eval("ProductName")%> </td> <td> <%# Eval("Price") %> </td> <td> <%# Eval("Category") %> </td> </tr> </ItemTemplate> </asp:Repeater> </ul> </div> </form> </body> </html> The C# code-behind sample code is: public partial class GetProducts : System.Web.UI.Page { public List<Product> products; protected override void OnInit(EventArgs e) { LoadSampleProductsData(); //load sample data base.OnInit(e); } protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (Request.QueryString.Count > 0) { if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(Request.QueryString["category"])) { string category = Request.QueryString["category"]; //get query string into string variable //filter products sample data by category using LINQ //and add the collection as data source to the repeater rptProducts.DataSource = products.Where(x => x.Category == category); rptProducts.DataBind(); //bind repeater } } } //load sample data method public void LoadSampleProductsData() { products = new List<Product>(); products.Add(new Product() { Category = "computers", Price = 200, ProductName = "Dell PC" }); products.Add(new Product() { Category = "shoes", Price = 90, ProductName = "Nike" }); products.Add(new Product() { Category = "shoes", Price = 66, ProductName = "Adidas" }); products.Add(new Product() { Category = "computers", Price = 210, ProductName = "HP PC" }); products.Add(new Product() { Category = "shoes", Price = 85, ProductName = "Puma" }); } } //sample Product class public class Product { public string ProductName { get; set; } public decimal Price { get; set; } public string Category { get; set; } } Mainly, I just have sample data loading function, Product class and depending of the query string, I am filtering the products list using LINQ Where statement. If we run this page without query string, it will show no data. If we call the page with category query string, it will filter automatically. Example: /AjaxPages/GetProducts.aspx?category=shoes The result will be: or if we use category=computers, like this /AjaxPages/GetProducts.aspx?category=computers, the result will be: So, now using jQuery.load() function, we can call this page with provided query string parameter and load appropriate content… The ASPX code in our Default.aspx page, which will call the AjaxPages/GetProducts.aspx page using jQuery.load() function is: <asp:RadioButtonList ID="rblProductCategory" runat="server"> <asp:ListItem Text="Shoes" Value="shoes" Selected="True" /> <asp:ListItem Text="Computers" Value="computers" /> </asp:RadioButtonList> <asp:Button ID="btnLoadProducts" runat="server" Text="Load Products" /> <!-- Here we will load the products, based on the radio button selection--> <div id="products"></div> </form> The jQuery code: $("#<%= btnLoadProducts.ClientID %>").click(function (event) { event.preventDefault(); //preventing button's default behavior var selectedRadioButton = $("#<%= rblProductCategory.ClientID %> input:checked").val(); //call GetProducts.aspx with the category query string for the selected category in radio button list //filter and get only the #tableProducts content inside #products div $("#products").load("AjaxPages/GetProducts.aspx?category=" + selectedRadioButton + " #tableProducts"); }); The end result: You can download the code sample from here. You can read more about jQuery.load() function here. I hope this was useful blog post for you. Please do let me know your feedback. Best Regards, Hajan

    Read the article

  • SharePoint Unit Testing and Load Testing Finally?

    - by Kit Ong
    It has always been a real pain to incorporate extensive SharePoint Unit Testing and Load Testing in a project, could Visual Studio 2012 finally make this easier? It certaining looks like it, here's a brief overview on SharePoint support in Visual Studio 2012. Load testing – We now support load testing for SharePoint out of the box. This is more involved than you might imagine due to how dynamic SharePoint is. You can’t just record a script and play it back – it won’t work because SharePoint generates and expects dynamic data (like GUIDs). We’ve built the extensions to our load testing solution to parse the dynamic SharePoint data and include it appropriately in subsequent requests. So now you can record a script and play it back and we will dynamically adjust it to match what SharePoint expects.Unit testing – One of the big problems with unit testing SharePoint is that most code requires SharePoint to be running and trying to run tests against a live SharePoint instance is a pain. So we’ve built a SharePoint “emulator” using our new VS 2012 Fakes & Stubs capability. This will make unit testing of SharePoint components WAY easier.Read more in the link belowhttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/bharry/archive/2012/09/12/visual-studio-update-this-fall.aspx

    Read the article

  • Multiple Condition Coverage Testing

    - by David Relihan
    Hi Folks, When using the White Box method of testing called Multiple Condition Coverage, do we take all conditional statements or just the ones with multiple conditions? Now maybe the clues in the name but I'm not sure. So if I have the following method void someMethod() { if(a && b && (c || (d && e)) ) //Conditional A { } if(z && q) // Conditional B { } } Do I generate the truth table for just "Conditional A", or do I also do Conditional B? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Automate Testing on future only items business rules

    - by Titan
    I currently have a business object with a validation business rule, which is it can only be created for the future, tomorrow onwards, and I cannot create new items for today. I have a process, which runs the non-future business objects through some steps.. Because I have to set things up today, and test tomorrow, and when it fails, I can only create a new object tomorrow and test the following day. Are there any easy ways to automate this process in any testing frameworks? I think our testers are using the visual studio 2010 test manager. How do you guys manage situations like this? Cheers

    Read the article

  • Cloud Based Load Testing Using TF Service &amp; VS 2013

    - by Tarun Arora [Microsoft MVP]
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TarunArora/archive/2013/06/30/cloud-based-load-testing-using-tf-service-amp-vs-2013.aspx One of the new features announced as part of the Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate Preview is ‘Cloud Based Load Testing’. In this blog post I’ll walk you through, What is Cloud Based Load Testing? How have I been using this feature? – Success story! Where can you find more resources on this feature? What is Cloud Based Load Testing? It goes without saying that performance testing your application not only gives you the confidence that the application will work under heavy levels of stress but also gives you the ability to test how scalable the architecture of your application is. It is important to know how much is too much for your application! Working with various clients in the industry I have realized that the biggest barriers in Load Testing & Performance Testing adoption are, High infrastructure and administration cost that comes with this phase of testing Time taken to procure & set up the test infrastructure Finding use for this infrastructure investment after completion of testing Is cloud the answer? 100% Visual Studio Compatible Scalable and Realistic Start testing in < 2 minutes Intuitive Pay only for what you need Use existing on premise tests on cloud There are a lot of vendors out there offering Cloud Based Load Testing, to name a few, Load Storm Soasta Blaze Meter Blitz And others… The question you may want to ask is, why should you go with Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test offering. If you are a Microsoft shop or already have investments in Microsoft technologies, you’ll see great benefit in the natural integration this offers with existing Microsoft products such as Visual Studio and Windows Azure. For example, your existing Web tests authored in Visual Studio 2010 or Visual Studio 2012 will run on the cloud without requiring any modifications what so ever. Microsoft’s cloud test rig also supports API based testing, for example, if you are building a WPF application which consumes WCF services, you can write unit tests to invoke the WCF service, these tests can be run on the cloud test rig and loaded with ‘N’ concurrent users for performance testing. If you have your assets already hosted in the Azure and possibly in the same data centre as the Cloud test rig, your Azure app will not incur a usage cost because of the generated traffic since the traffic is coming from the same data centre. The licensing or pricing information on Microsoft’s cloud based Load test service is yet to be announced, but I would expect this to be priced attractively to match the market competition.   The only additional configuration required for running load tests on Microsoft Cloud based Load Tests service is to select the Test run location as Run tests using Visual Studio Team Foundation Service, How have I been using Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test Service? I have been part of the Microsoft Cloud Based Load Test Service advisory council for the last 7 months. This gave the opportunity to see the product shape up from concept to working solution. I was also the first person outside of Microsoft to try this offering out. This gave me the opportunity to test real world application at various clients using the Microsoft Load Test Service and provide real world feedback to the Microsoft product team. One of the most recent systems I tested using the Load Test Service has been an insurance quote generation engine. This insurance quote generation engine is,   hosted in Windows Azure expected to get quote requests from across the globe expected to handle 5 Million quote requests in a day (not clear how this load will be distributed across the day) There was no way, I could simulate such kind of load from on premise without standing up additional hardware. But Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test service allowed me to test my key performance testing scenarios, i.e. Simulate expected Load, Endurance Testing, Threshold Testing and Testing for Latency. Simulating expected load: approach to devising a load pattern My approach to devising a load test pattern has been to run the test scenario with 1 user to figure out the response time. Then work out how many users are required to reach the target load. So, for example, to invoke 1 quote from the quote engine software takes 0.5 seconds. Now if you do the math,   1 quote request by 1 user = 0.5 seconds   quotes generated by 1 user in 24 hour = 1 * (((2 * 60) * 60) * 24) = 172,800   quotes generated by 30 users in 24 hours = 172,800 * 30 =  5,184,000 This was a very simple example, if your application requires more concurrent users to test scenario’s such as caching, etc then you can devise your own load pattern, some examples of load test patterns can be found here.  Endurance Testing To test for endurance, I loaded the quote generation engine with an expected fixed user load and ran the test for very long duration such as over 48 hours and observed the affect of the long running test on the Azure infrastructure. Currently Microsoft Load Test service does not support metrics from the machine under test. I used Azure diagnostics to begin with, but later started using Cerebrata Azure Diagnostics Manager to capture the metrics of the machine under test. Threshold Testing To figure out how much user load the application could cope with before falling on its belly, I opted to step load the quote generation engine by incrementing user load with different variations of incremental user load per minute till the application crashed out and forced an IIS reset. Testing for Latency Currently the Microsoft Load Test service does not support generating geographically distributed load, I however, deployed the insurance quote generation engine in different Azure data centres and ran the same set of performance tests to measure for latency. Because I could compare load test results from different runs by exporting the results to excel (this feature is provided out of the box right from Visual Studio 2010) I could see the different in response times. More resources on Microsoft Cloud based Load Test Service A few important links to get you started, Download Visual Studio Ultimate 2013 Preview Getting started guide for load testing using Team Foundation Service Troubleshooting guide for FAQs and known issues Team Foundation Service forum for questions and support Detailed demo and presentation (link to Tech-Ed session recording) Detailed demo and presentation (link to Build session recording) There a few limits on the usage of Microsoft Cloud based Load Test service that you can read about here. If you have any feedback on Microsoft Cloud based Load Test service, feel free to share it with the product team via the Visual Studio User Voice forum. I hope you found this useful. Thank you for taking the time out and reading this blog post. If you enjoyed the post, remember to subscribe to http://feeds.feedburner.com/TarunArora. Stay tuned!

    Read the article

  • What is the objective of unit testing?

    - by user728750
    I've been working with C# for the last 2 years, and I've never done any unit testing. I just need to know what the objective of unit testing is. What kind of results do we expect from unit testing? Is code quality checked by unit testing? In my view, unit testing is the job of testers; if that is true, then as a developer why would I need to write test code if the tester does the unit testing? Why should I write extra code for testing? Do I need to maintain a separate copy of a project for unit testing?

    Read the article

  • Link between tests and user stories

    - by Sardathrion
    I have not see these links explicitly stated in the Agile literature I have read. So, I was wondering if this approach was correct: Let a story be defined as "In order to [RESULT], [ROLE] needs to [ACTION]" then RESULT generates system tests. ROLE generates acceptance tests. ACTION generates component and unit tests. Where the definitions are the ones used in xUnit Patterns which to be fair are fairly standard. Is this a correct interpretation or did I misunderstand something?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between debugging and testing?

    - by persepolis
    Introduction To Software Testing (Ammann & Offutt) mentions on p.32 a 5-level testing maturity model: Level 0 There’s no difference between testing and debugging. Level 1 The purpose of testing is to show that the software works. Level 2 The purpose of testing is to show that the software doesn’t work. Level 3 The purpose of testing is not to prove anything specific, but to reduce the risk of using the software. Level 4 Testing is a mental discipline that helps all IT professionals develop higher quality software. Although they don't go into much further detail. What are the differences between debugging and testing?

    Read the article

  • Load Balancing of PHP/MYSQL script without big code changes

    - by DR.GEWA
    Sorry for my Dummy Question, but... I am making a script on php/mysql (codeigniter) and I am extremally interested in knowing if there is a way without big architectural changes of the script make a load balancing. I mean, that for example now I will rent a medium dedicated server with 2GB ram, 200GB memory and good processor, and this will be enough lets say half year for the users which will come. But when they will become more and more, and as its a social net and at nights the server is waiting to have 500-1500 or 5000-8000 users online, I wander if there is a way for lets say just add second server with some config which will bear next pressure. After again one and so on... ???? <? if($answer=YES) { how(??); } esle{ whatToDo(??); } ?> If there is no way, than maybe you could point to a easiest way of load balancing solution.... I will be extremally thanksfull if you can tell me for such purposes , should I move lets say to PostgreSQl or FireBird? Which of them will be more easy in the future to handle ? I am getting on the mysite.com/users/show/$userId page something like 60queries for all data... maybe too much, but anyway....after some optimization it can be 20-30....

    Read the article

  • Rails testing authlogic

    - by pepernik
    I just started using tests. I try to test the login like this require 'test_helper' class UserFlowsTest < ActionController::IntegrationTest fixtures :all # Replace this with your real tests. test "login and browse" do https! get "/users/new" assert_response :success post "/user_sessions", :email => '[email protected]', :password => 'aaaa' follow_redirect! assert_equal root_path, path end end I use authlogic gem in my rails app. What is wrong with this test? It breaks at 'follow_redirect!' saying it is not a redirection but login through a browser works. Thx!

    Read the article

  • How do I add PHP support to Apache 2 without breaking my current installation?

    - by Hobhouse
    I run Apache 2 with WSGI (for a Django-app) on a Ubuntu box. I want to use Nagios for server monitoring, and for this purpose it seems I have to add PHP support to Apache. When I installed Apache 2, I did this: apt-get install apache2 apache2.2-common apache2-mpm-worker apache2-threaded-dev libapache2-mod-wsgi python-dev Available modules for apache2 are these: /etc/apache2/mods-available$ ls actions.conf authn_default.load cache.load deflate.conf filter.load mime.conf proxy_ftp.load suexec.load actions.load authn_file.load cern_meta.load deflate.load headers.load mime.load proxy_http.load unique_id.load alias.conf authnz_ldap.load cgi.load dir.conf ident.load mime_magic.conf rewrite.load userdir.conf alias.load authz_dbm.load cgid.conf dir.load imagemap.load mime_magic.load setenvif.conf userdir.load asis.load authz_default.load cgid.load disk_cache.conf include.load negotiation.conf setenvif.load usertrack.load auth_basic.load authz_groupfile.load charset_lite.load disk_cache.load info.conf negotiation.load speling.load version.load auth_digest.load authz_host.load dav.load dump_io.load info.load proxy.conf ssl.conf vhost_alias.load authn_alias.load authz_owner.load dav_fs.conf env.load ldap.load proxy.load ssl.load wsgi.conf authn_anon.load authz_user.load dav_fs.load expires.load log_forensic.load proxy_ajp.load status.conf wsgi.load authn_dbd.load autoindex.conf dav_lock.load ext_filter.load mem_cache.conf proxy_balancer.load status.load authn_dbm.load autoindex.load dbd.load file_cache.load mem_cache.load proxy_connect.load substitute.load What is the best way for me to add PHP support to Apache 2 without breaking my current installation and configuration?

    Read the article

  • DNS Round-robin, Load Balancing, Load sharing, and failover in 2012

    - by user1089770
    I have been reading many posts on serverfault as well as on other sites regarding all these. What I understand is, Multiple A records(round-robin dns) can be used for both : Load sharing (round-robin, but NOT load-balancing). Many people say that “Load Balancing” but I think there will be no load-balancing because “Balance” means (literally) “compare two(or more) and adjust” (and that is what Real s/w or h/w Load balancers do) but Browsers never do this, instead they randomly select and IP and connect to it. It doesn't have any knowledge about the current load of that server (probably, the IP it picked had the highest load!). Automatic failover (latest browsers only). Yes, I think DNS can be used as a simple failover system (at least in 2012, I dont know when it actually "came in effect"). please refer to : http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/10927/using-multiple-a-records-for-my-domain-do-web-browsers-ever-try-more-than-one and Browser-based DNS failover using multiple A records and http://www.nber.org/sys-admin/dns-failover.html I would like to make sure my assumptions/findings are right. So let me know please.....

    Read the article

  • Functional testing in the verification

    - by user970696
    Yesterday my question How come verification does not include actual testing? created a lot of controversy, yet did not reveal the answer for related and very important question: does black box functional testing done by testers belong to verification or validation? ISO 12207:12208 here mentiones testing explicitly only as a validation activity, however, it speaks about validation of requirements of the intended use. For me its more high level, like UAT test cases written by business users ISO mentioned above does not mention any specific verification (7.2.4.3.2)except for Requirement verification, Design verification, Document and Code & Integration verification. The last two can be probably thought as unit and integrated testing. But where is then the regular testing done by testers at the end of the phase? The book I mentioned in the original question mentiones that verification is done by static techniques, yet on the V model graph it describes System testing against high level description as a verification, mentioning it includes all kinds of testing like functional, load etc. In the IEEE standard for V&V, you can read this: Even though the tests and evaluations are not part of the V&V processes, the techniques described in this standard may be useful in performing them. So that is different than in ISO, where validation mentiones testing as the activity. Not to mention a lot of contradicting information on the net. I would really appreciate a reference to e.g. a standard in the answer or explanation of what I missed in the ISO. For me, I am unable to tell where the testers work belong.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle EBS Now Available

    - by Anne Carlson (Oracle Development)
    There’s new news about automated testing of E-Business Suite using the Oracle Application Testing Suite, a.k.a, “OATS”. E-Business Suite Development is pleased to announce the availability of the new Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite. The new pack, available with the latest release of Oracle Application Testing Suite (12.4.0.2), provides pre-built test components and flows to automate the in-depth testing of Oracle E-Business Suite applications. Designed for use with the Oracle Application Testing Suite and its Oracle Flow Builder capability, these pre-built components and flows can help Oracle E-Business Suite customers to significantly reduce the time and effort needed to create and maintain automated test scripts. The Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite is available now for EBS 12.1.3, and availability for EBS 12.2 is planned. Some Background on Automating Testing with Oracle Application Testing Suite and Oracle Flow Builder      Testing complex packaged applications like Oracle E-Business Suite can be time-consuming and challenging for organizations, hampering their ability to upgrade to latest releases or apply latest patches. Oracle Application Testing Suite offers organizations a unique and powerful testing platform for Oracle E-Business Suite and other Oracle applications. With the 12.3.0.1 release of Oracle Application Testing Suite, we introduced the Oracle Flow Builder testing framework and accompanying starter pack of pre-built test components and flows. The starter pack, which contains over 2000 components and 200 flows, provides broad coverage of commonly-used base functionality and is designed to jump-start the test automation effort. Using Oracle Flow Builder, even non-technical testers can create working test scripts using the pre-built components that Oracle provides. Each component represents an atomic test operation such as “create an invoice batch” or “apply an invoice hold.” Testers can assemble the pre-built components into test flows, and combine test flows with spreadsheet data to drive the testing of multiple data conditions. The Oracle Flow Builder framework allows customers to add, modify and extend the pre-built components to address new functionality and customizations of the Oracle E-Business Suite. Using Oracle Flow Builder’s component-based test generation framework instead of a traditional record/playback approach has allowed the EBS Quality Assurance team to reduce their test automation effort by 60%. E-Business Suite customers can significantly reduce their test automation effort using Oracle Application Testing Suite with Oracle Flow Builder and the pre-built test components and flows that Oracle provides. Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite Improves Test Coverage With the Oracle Application Testing Suite 12.4.0.2 and the new Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite, we are now delivering a significant number of additional test components and flows beyond those contained in the Oracle Flow Builder starter pack. These additional test components and flows provide 70-80% test coverage and enable the automation of detailed and complex test flows across the following Oracle E-Business Suite products: Oracle Asset Lifecycle Management Oracle Channel Revenue Management Oracle Discrete Manufacturing Oracle Incentive Compensation Oracle Lease and Finance Management Oracle Process Manufacturing Oracle Procurement Oracle Project Management Oracle Property Manager Oracle Service Downloads You can download the Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack for Oracle E-Business Suite from the Oracle Technology Network. References Oracle Applications Testing Suite YouTube: Oracle Flow Builder Training YouTube: Oracle Applications Testing Suite and Flow Builder Demonstration Oracle Functional Testing Suite Advanced Pack Readme for E-Business Suite, id=1905989.1">Note 1905989.1 Related Articles Automate Testing Using Oracle Application Testing Suite with Flow Builder for E-Business Suite EBS 12.1.1 Test Starter Kit Now Available for Oracle Applications Testing Suite Oracle Application Testing Suite 9.0 Supported with Oracle E-Business Suite Using the Oracle Application Testing Suite with EBS: Interim Update #1

    Read the article

  • What are best practices for testing programs with stochastic behavior?

    - by John Doucette
    Doing R&D work, I often find myself writing programs that have some large degree of randomness in their behavior. For example, when I work in Genetic Programming, I often write programs that generate and execute arbitrary random source code. A problem with testing such code is that bugs are often intermittent and can be very hard to reproduce. This goes beyond just setting a random seed to the same value and starting execution over. For instance, code might read a message from the kernal ring buffer, and then make conditional jumps on the message contents. Naturally, the ring buffer's state will have changed when one later attempts to reproduce the issue. Even though this behavior is a feature it can trigger other code in unexpected ways, and thus often reveals bugs that unit tests (or human testers) don't find. Are there established best practices for testing systems of this sort? If so, some references would be very helpful. If not, any other suggestions are welcome!

    Read the article

  • introducing automated testing without steep learning curve

    - by esther h
    We're a group of 4 developers on a ajax/mysql/php web application. 2 of us end up focusing most of our efforts on testing the application, as it is time-consuming, instead of actually coding. When I say testing, I mean opening screens and testing links, making sure nothing is broken and the data is correct. I understand there are test frameworks out there which can automate this kind of testing for you, but I am not familiar with any of them (neither is anyone on the team), or the fancy jargon (is it test-driven? behavior-driven? acceptance testing?) So, we're looking to slowly incorporate automated testing. We're all programmers, so it doesn't have to be super-simple. But we don't want something that will take a week to learn... And it has to match our php/ajax platform... What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Inspection, code review - is it really testing?

    - by user970696
    ISTQB, Wikipedia or other sources classify verification acitivities (reviews etc.) as a static testing, yet other do not. If we can say that peer reviews and inspections are actually a kind of a testing, then a lot of standards do not make sense (consider e.g. ISO which say that validation is done by testing, while verification by checking of work products) - it should at least say dynamic testing for validation, shouldn't it? I am completing master thesis dealing with QA and I must admit that I have never seen worse and more ambiguous and contradicting literature than in this field :/ Do you think (and if so, why) that static testing is a good and justifiable term or should we stick to testing and static checks/analysis?

    Read the article

  • Load Sharing Regarding Large Websites

    - by JHarley1
    Hello, I have a question regarding Load Sharing for large websites. My Understanding: So if you have a website that has millions of fits a day you will need to have an architecture that can support this sort of pressure. You can either do one or two things: Invest in a single large server that has huge amounts of processing power, memory and storage (such as Microsoft's TerraServer). Spread the load of your website across a number of machines. Let me tackle the second approach, so you have a collection of machines all running Web Server Software and all having access to identical copies of the websites pages. You can either spread the load across these machines using a cyclic pattern in a DNS or you can use a Load Ballancing Switch. The advantages of this approach is: - Redundancy - servers can fail and the others would "pick up the slack" - Incremental - the ability to easily add new machines to this set-up. My Question's Is there a Virtual approach to this issue of load balancing now? If the website runs from a database - is there still only a single copy of the database? If a user had a session running on one Server (e.g. they had gone to www.example.org and had been assigned to Server 2 - were they had created a session) if they refreshed the website (and were allocated Server 3) would they still have their session? What are the other disadvantages associated with Load Balancing? Many Thanks, J

    Read the article

  • Agile Testing Days 2012 – Day 2 – Learn through disagreement

    - by Chris George
    I think I was in the right place! During Day 1 I kept on reading tweets about Lean Coffee that has happened earlier that morning. It intrigued me and I figured in for a penny in for a pound, and set my alarm for 6:45am. Following the award night the night before, it was _really_ hard getting up when it went off, but I did and after a very early breakfast, set off for the 10 min walk to the Dorint. With Lean Coffee due to start at 07:30, I arrived at the hotel and made my way to one of the hotel bars. I soon realised I was in the right place as although the bar was empty, there was a table with post-it’s and pens! This MUST be the place! The premise of Lean Coffee is to have several small timeboxed discussions. Everyone writes down what they would like to discuss on post-its that are then briefly explained and submitted to the pile. Once everyone is done, the group dot-votes on the topics. The topics are then sorted by the dot vote counts and the discussions begin. Each discussion had 8 mins to start with, which meant it prevented the discussions getting off topic too much. After the time elapsed, the group had a vote whether to extend the discussion by a further 4 mins or move on. Several discussion were had around training, soft skills etc. The conversations were really interesting and there were quite a few good ideas. Overall it was a very enjoyable experience, certainly worth the early start! Make Melly Happy Following Lean Coffee was real coffee, and much needed that was! The first keynote of the day was “Let’s help Melly (Changing Work into Life)”by Jurgen Appelo. Draw lines to track happiness This was a very interesting presentation, and set the day nicely. The theme to the keynote was projects are about the people, more-so than the actual tasks. So he started by showing a photo of an employee ‘Melly’ who looked happy enough. He then stated that she looked happy but actually hated her job. In fact 50% of Americans hate their jobs. He went on to say that the world over 50% of people hate Americans their jobs. Jurgen talked about many ways to reduce the feedback cycle, not only of the project, but of the people management. Ideas such as Happiness doors, happiness tracking (drawing lines on a wall indicating your happiness for that day), kudo boxes (to compliment a colleague for good work). All of these (and more) ideas stimulate conversation amongst the team, lead to early detection of issues and investigation of solutions. I’ve massively simplified Jurgen’s keynote and have certainly not done it justice, so I will post a link to the video once it’s available. Following more coffee, the next talk was “How releasing faster changes testing” by Alexander Schwartz. This is a topic very close to our hearts at the moment, so I was eager to find out any juicy morsels that could help us achieve more frequent releases, and Alex did not disappoint. He started off by confirming something that I have been a firm believer in for a number of years now; adding more people can do more harm than good when trying to release. This is for a number of reasons, but just adding new people to a team at such a critical time can be more of a drain on resources than they add. The alternative is to have the whole team have shared responsibility for faster delivery. So the whole team is responsible for quality and testing. Obviously you will have the test engineers on the project who have the specialist skills, but there is no reason that the entire team cannot do exploratory testing on the product. This links nicely with the Developer Exploratory testing presented by Sigge on Day 1, and certainly something that my team are really striving towards. Focus on cycle time, so what can be done to reduce the time between dev cycles, release cycles. What’s stops a release, what delays a release? all good solid questions that can be answered. Alex suggested that perhaps the product doesn’t need to be fully tested. Doing less testing will reduce the cycle time therefore get the release out faster. He suggested a risk-based approach to planning what testing needs to happen. Reducing testing could have an impact on revenue if it causes harm to customers, so test the ‘right stuff’! Determine a set of tests that are ‘face saving’ or ‘smoke’ tests. These tests cover the core functionality of the product and aim to prevent major embarrassment if these areas were to fail! Amongst many other very good points, Alex suggested that a good approach would be to release after every new feature is added. So do a bit of work -> release, do some more work -> release. By releasing small increments of work, the impact on the customer of bugs being introduced is reduced. Red Pill, Blue Pill The second keynote of the day was “Adaptation and improvisation – but your weakness is not your technique” by Markus Gartner and proved to be another very good presentation. It started off quoting lines from the Matrix which relate to adapting, improvising, realisation and mastery. It has alot of nerds in the room smiling! Markus went on to explain how through deliberate practice ( and a lot of it!) you can achieve mastery, but then you never stop learning. Through methods such as code retreats, testing dojos, workshops you can continually improve and learn. The code retreat idea was one that interested me. It involved pairing to write an automated test for, say, 45 mins, they deleting all the code, finding a different partner and writing the same test again! This is another keynote where the video will speak louder than anything I can write here! Markus did elaborate on something that Lisa and Janet had touched on yesterday whilst busting the myth that “Testers Must Code”. Whilst it is true that to be a tester, you don’t need to code, it is becoming more common that there is this crossover happening where more testers are coding and more programmers are testing. Markus made a special distinction between programmers and developers as testers develop tests code so this helped to make that clear. “Extending Continuous Integration and TDD with Continuous Testing” by Jason Ayers was my next talk after lunch. We already do CI and a bit of TDD on my project team so I was interested to see what this continuous testing thing was all about and whether it would actually work for us. At the start of the presentation I was of the opinion that it just would not work for us because our tests are too slow, and that would be the case for many people. Jason started off by setting the scene and saying that those doing TDD spend between 10-15% of their time waiting for tests to run. This can be reduced by testing less often, reducing the test time but this then increases the risk of introduced bugs not being spotted quickly. Therefore, in comes Continuous Testing (CT). CT systems run your unit tests whenever you save some code and runs them in the background so you can continue working. This is a really nice idea, but to do this, your tests must be fast, independent and reliable. The latter two should be the case anyway, and the first is ideal, but hard! Jason makes several suggestions to make tests fast. Firstly keep the scope of the test small, secondly spin off any expensive tests into a suite which is run, perhaps, overnight or outside of the CT system at any rate. So this started to change my mind, perhaps we could re-engineer our tests, and continuously run the quick ones to give an element of coverage. This talk was very interesting and I’ve already tried a couple of the tools mentioned on our product (Mighty Moose and NCrunch). Sadly due to the way our solution is built, it currently doesn’t work, but we will look at whether we can make this work because this has the potential to be a mini-game-changer for us. Using the wrong data Gojko’s Hierarchy of Quality The final keynote of the day was “Reinventing software quality” by Gojko Adzic. He opened the talk with the statement “We’ve got quality wrong because we are using the wrong data”! Gojko then went on to explain that we should judge a bug by whether the customer cares about it, not by whether we think it’s important. Why spend time fixing issues that the customer just wouldn’t care about and releasing months later because of this? Surely it’s better to release now and get customer feedback? This was another reference to the idea of how it’s better to build the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right. Get feedback early to make sure you’re making the right thing. Gojko then showed something which was very analogous to Maslow’s heirachy of needs. Successful – does it contribute to the business? Useful – does it do what the user wants Usable – does it do what it’s supposed to without breaking Performant/Secure – is it secure/is the performance acceptable Deployable Functionally ok – can it be deployed without breaking? He then explained that User Stories should focus on change. In other words they should focus on the users needs, not the users process. Describe what the change will be, how that change will happen then measure it! Networking and Beer Following the day’s closing keynote, there were drinks and nibble for the ‘Networking’ evening. This was a great opportunity to talk to people. I find approaching strangers very uncomfortable but once again, when in Rome! Pete Walen and I had a long conversation about only fixing issues that the customer cares about versus fixing issues that make you proud of your software! Without saying much, and asking the right questions, Pete made me re-evaluate my thoughts on the matter. Clever, very clever!  Oh and he ‘bought’ me a beer! My Takeaway Triple from Day 2: release small and release often to minimize issues creeping in and get faster feedback from ‘the real world’ Focus on issues that the customers care about, not what we think is important It’s okay to disagree with someone, even if they are well respected agile testing gurus, that’s how discussion and learning happens!  

    Read the article

  • Testing realistic loads for new versions of existing web app

    - by David Cournapeau
    Assuming I have a relatively complex web application, I am interested in testing performances of a new version using a traffic as realistic as possible. Traffic is relatively complex (session-based, lots of internal logic which depends on incoming requests). The webapp depends on many servers (databases, frontends, etc...). I can think of two basic directions: Recording every incoming request with its timestamp in production in a centralized manner and replaying it from N clients to reproduce a load as close as possible as the original. Issue: because we have many servers, getting the centralized log is not trivial. having a system duplicating requests to a staging area so that I could "plug" a dev version of my webapp to it at anytime without affecting the production. Issue: I have not found much information about it expect this, which suggests to me that may not be the best solution. OTOH, it is realistic by definition. What is the standard way of doing this kind of testing ? I did not find much information about load testing with complex, realistic traffic.

    Read the article

  • Point to Taken Care while Microsoft SQL Patching Testing in Production

    - by AbhishekLohani
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/AbhishekLohani/archive/2013/10/29/point-to-taken-care-while-sql-patching-testing--in.aspx Point to Taken Care while Microsoft SQL Patching Testing in Production It very critical testing like Paching testing  1. Build the Test Environment Parrel to Production Environment i.e Staging Environment2 Check the Version of Application deployed is same as Production Environment if Staging Environment not parrel to production environment then risk of defect in production 3.Check End to End Flow of Appliction 4 Check the Eventlog entries 5 Check the performance of the Application . Thanks & RegardsAbhishek

    Read the article

  • Any thoughts on A/B testing in Django based project?

    - by Maddy
    We just now started doing the A/B testing for our Django based project. Can I get some information on best practices or useful insights about this A/B testing. Ideally each new testing page will be differentiated with a single parameter(just like Gmail). mysite.com/?ui=2 should give a different page. So for every view I need to write a decorator to load different templates based on the 'ui' parameter value. And I dont want to hard code any template names in decorators. So how would urls.py url pattern will be?

    Read the article

  • Configuration of Sonicwall Load Balancing

    - by jacke672
    We installed a Sonicwall NSA 240 appliance and have configured it up for our SSL VPN connection and for load balancing with 2 ADSL lines. Over the past week, I have been testing the load balancing options to optimize the connection speeds for our users - but I've run into the following: Round Robin load balancing is the ideal load balancing setting and it's roughly doubling our throughput- but, when it's active users are unable to access any SSL enabled websites such as banking, web-mail, etc. For this reason, I have been using percentage based balancing as it allows me to enable source and destination IP binding, which doesn't 'break' any secure connections but were left with the slow connection speeds we had before adding the second line. I'm looking for a method in which we can take advantage of the round robin connection speeds while allowing users to access sites with SSL certificates, all while still allowing our remote (vpn) users to connect. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >