Search Results

Search found 752 results on 31 pages for 'specifications'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/31 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Rails Tutorial Error with gemspec for "rspec" "annotate" "spork" "ansicolor" [closed]

    - by Chris H
    I'm following the Rails Tutorial by Michael Hartl and I'm getting this error when I run. bundle exec rspec spec/requests/static_pages_spec.rb Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/annotate-2.4.1.beta1.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-09-02 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-rspec-0.5.5.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-20 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-spork-0.3.2.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-18 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/spork-0.9.0.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2012-01-22 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/term-ansicolor-1.0.7.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-10-13 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/annotate-2.4.1.beta1.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-09-02 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-rspec-0.5.5.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-20 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-spork-0.3.2.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-18 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/spork-0.9.0.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2012-01-22 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/term-ansicolor-1.0.7.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-10-13 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/annotate-2.4.1.beta1.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-09-02 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-rspec-0.5.5.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-20 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-spork-0.3.2.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-18 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/spork-0.9.0.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2012-01-22 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/term-ansicolor-1.0.7.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-10-13 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/annotate-2.4.1.beta1.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-09-02 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-rspec-0.5.5.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-20 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/guard-spork-0.3.2.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-11-18 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/spork-0.9.0.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2012-01-22 00:00:00.000000000Z" Invalid gemspec in [/Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/specifications/term-ansicolor-1.0.7.gemspec]: invalid date format in specification: "2011-10-13 00:00:00.000000000Z" /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb:746:in `load': cannot load such file -- /Users/chrishuang02/Desktop/rails_projects/first_app/spec/requests/spec/requests/static_pages_spec.rb (LoadError) from /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb:746:in `block in load_spec_files' from /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb:746:in `map' from /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/configuration.rb:746:in `load_spec_files' from /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/command_line.rb:22:in `run' from /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/runner.rb:69:in `run' from /Users/chrishuang02/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p125@rails3tutorial2ndEd/gems/rspec-core-2.9.0/lib/rspec/core/runner.rb:10:in `block in autorun'

    Read the article

  • Developing Functional Specifications based on the UML Model

    A few days ago I found this white paper I did around 2004 way before I started really blogging:The Process OverviewUse-case to Specifications is a processing using UML use-cases to identify user requirements and model systems to be able to properly define functionality. This document is intended to serve as an execution based walk-through of this process.As background: The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a language for specifying, visualizing, constructing, and documenting the artifacts of software...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Does this laptop have high enough specifications for gaming? [closed]

    - by Grant
    Here's the laptop It wouldn't be hardcore gaming, mostly things like the new Deus Ex game, Mirror's Edge, Portal 2, etc... I need to replace my current, broken, laptop and I thought this would be a good opportunity to get to play some of these games. My current laptop is really only lacking in its graphics card. (Intel series 4 chipset) If this laptop isn't good enough, I would really appreciate suggestions. I won't be able to get a desktop, otherwise I would, and I can't spend more than $1000 dollars on my new laptop.

    Read the article

  • How to estimate a server specifications for this particular system? [on hold]

    - by Alvaro Fallas
    I'm working in a college project and I'm supposed to specify the server's hardware to hold a system. The system is some kind of social network. And it is supposed to hold around 100 000 users the first year, also the system must be able to handle 1000 users working at the same time. It is the first time I'm asked to do something like this, so I hope you can give me a hand and help me because I feel a little lost. The system's data base is Mysql. I found some server configurations offered by Amazon Web Services, but I don't know which of them is the better for my system due to lack of experience Hope you can help me.

    Read the article

  • What monitor specifications should be taken into consideration to avoid eye problems? [closed]

    - by coding crow
    I spent time programming on my 13.3" laptop for 8 to 10 hours a day. I was planning to buy a good monitor. Now that I have developed CVS buying a monitor has became an immediate priority. I have spend some time trying to understand what I should buy and why. I could only zero down on the size (20") and LED. So, I'm looking for advice on many other factors like resolution, pixel density, panel technology and so forth. What should I look for in a computer monitor to avoid further eye problems? Why?

    Read the article

  • How to be successful at BDD Specifications Workshops?

    - by sigo
    Today we tried to introduce BDD in our software development process by having a specification workshop. For this workshop we had 2 developers, 1 tester and 1 business analyst. The workshop lasted 1h30 and by the end of it we managed to figure out some BDD scenarios for our new feature. We tried to focus on finding the scenarios that we could miss, and the difficult ones. At the end of the workshop some people were actually unhappy with the workshop. One developer felt he wasted his time as he was used to be given out the scenarios directly by the business analyst and review them with her. The business analyst didn't feel confident with our scenario coverage (Had a feeling that we could have missed out other important stuff) but more importantly felt that this workshop was also a waste of time as she could have figured out all these scenarios by herself and in a shorter period of time. So my question is how that kind of workshop can actually work. In the theory, given you have a new feature to develop, you put the tree 'amigos' (dev/tester/ba) in the same room so that they can collaborate together on writing the differents requirements for the new feature using examples. I can see all the benefits from that. Specially in term of knowledge sharing and common product/end goal/done vision. But in practice, we still think it is more cost effective to first have a BA to work on his own on the examples and only then to have the scenarios to be reviewed/reworked by the 3 'amigos'. By having the BA to work on his own, we actually feel more confident that we are less going to miss out stuff + we still get to review the scenarios afterward to double check. We don't think than simple brainstorming/deliberate discovery is actually enought to seriously cover all the requirement for a feature. The business analyst is actually the best person for that kind of stuff. The thing we just do is to review what she wrote and see if then we have a common understanding (which could then lead to rewrite some of her scenarios or add new ones she could have missed). This workshop lasted 1h30, and by the end of it, we didn't feel confident enought about wha we did...sure we could have spent more time on it but honestly most people get exhausted after 1h30 of brainstorming. So how can you get that to work effectively in practice ?

    Read the article

  • How to be successfull at BDD Specifications Workshops?

    - by sigo
    Today we tried to introduce BDD in our software development process by having a specification workshop. For this workshop we had 2 developers, 1 tester and 1 business analyst. The workshop lasted 1h30 and by the end of it we managed to figure out some BDD scenarios for our new feature. We tried to focus on finding the scenarios that we could miss, and the difficult ones. At the end of the workshop some people were actually unhappy with the workshop. One developer felt he wasted his time as he was used to be given out the scenarios directly by the business analyst and review them with her. The business analyst didn't feel confident with our scenario coverage (Had a feeling that we could have missed out other important stuff) but more importantly felt that this workshop was also a waste of time as she could have figured out all these scenarios by herself and in a shorter period of time. So my question is how that kind of workshop can actually work. In the theory, given you have a new feature to develop, you put the tree 'amigos' (dev/tester/ba) in the same room so that they can collaborate together on writing the differents requirements for the new feature using examples. I can see all the benefits from that. Specially in term of knowledge sharing and common product/end goal/done vision. But in practice, we still think it is more cost effective to first have a BA to work on his own on the examples and only then to have the scenarios to be reviewed/reworked by the 3 'amigos'. By having the BA to work on his own, we actually feel more confident that we are less going to miss out stuff + we still get to review the scenarios afterward to double check. We don't think than simple brainstorming/deliberate discovery is actually enought to seriously cover all the requirement for a feature. The business analyst is actually the best person for that kind of stuff. The thing we just do is to review what she wrote and see if then we have a common understanding (which could then lead to rewrite some of her scenarios or add new ones she could have missed). This workshop lasted 1h30, and by the end of it, we didn't feel confident enought about wha we did...sure we could have spent more time on it but honestly most people get exhausted after 1h30 of brainstorming. So how can you get that to work effectively in practice ?

    Read the article

  • IEEE SRS documents: lightweight version when working with outside contractors?

    - by maple_shaft
    Typically we follow an Agile development process that tends not to put an emphasis on writing requirements and technical documents that nobody will read. We tend to focus our limited manpower to development and testing activities with collaborative design and whiteboarding as a key focus. There is a mostly standalone web component that will take quite a few weeks to develop, but this work can be mostly parallel with other project work going on. To try and catch up time I was given a budget for hiring a developer on oDesk to complete this work. While my team isn't accustomed to working off of a firm SRS document, I realize that with outsourced development that it is a good idea to be as firm and specific as possible so I realize that I need to provide a detailed Requirements and Technical Specification document for this work to be done correctly. When I do write a Requirements document I typically utilize the standard IEEE SRS document template but I think this is too verbose and probably overkill for what I need to communicate to a developer. Is there another requirements document that is more lightweight and also accepted by a major standards organization like the IEEE? Further, as what will be developed as a software module that will interact with other software modules, my requirements really need to delve into technical specifications for things to work correctly. In this scenario does it make sense to merge technical and requirements specifications into a single document, and if not, what is a viable alternative?

    Read the article

  • Is there or why not having a ruby technology specification similar to Java's JSR?

    - by romeu.hcf
    I think on a community portal where specifications are made, documented and specified to reference libraries and systems implementation. An example: A specification for Message Queue where redis clients, for instance, could implement it and where the libraries could be validated by the specification's test suite. Redic, redis-rb, hiredis, redis-connection-pool, redis-namespace should all implement this specification. This way, being easily replaced.

    Read the article

  • Managing software projects - advice needed

    - by Callum
    I work for a large government department as part of an IT team that manages and develops websites as well as stand alone web applications. We’re running in to problems somewhere in the SDLC that don’t rear their ugly head until time and budget are starting to run out. We try to be “Agile” (software specifications are not as thorough as possible, clients have direct access to the developers any time they want) and we are also in a reasonably peculiar position in that we are not allowed to make profit from the services we provide. We only service the divisions within our government department, and can only charge for the time and effort we actually put in to a project. So if we deliver a project that we have over-quoted on, we will only invoice for the actual time spent. Our software specifications are not as thorough as they could be, but they always include at a minimum: Wireframe mockups for every form view A data dictionary of all field inputs Descriptions of any business rules that affect the system Descriptions of the outputs I’m new to software management, but I’ve overseen enough software projects now to know that as soon as users start observing demos of the system, they start making a huge amount of requests like “Can we add a few more fields to this report.. can we redesign the look of this interface.. can we send an email at this part of the workflow.. can we take this button off this view.. can we make this function redirect to a different screen.. can we change some text on this screen… can we create a special account where someone can log in and get access to X… this report takes too long to run can it be optimised.. can we remove this step in the workflow… there’s got to be a better image we can put here…” etc etc etc. Some changes are tiny and can be implemented reasonably quickly.. but there could be up to 50-100 or so of such requests during the course of the SDLC. Other change requests are what clients claim they “just assumed would be part of the system” even if not explicitly spelled out in the spec. We are having a lot of difficulty managing this process. With no experienced software project managers in our team, we need to come up with a better way to both internally identify whether work being requested is “out of spec”, and be able to communicate this to a client in such a manner that they can understand why what they are asking for is “extra” work. We need a way to track this work and be transparent with it. In the spirit of Agile development where we are not spec'ing software systems in to the ground and back again before development begins, and bearing in mind that clients have access to any developer any time they want it, I am looking for some tips and pointers from experienced software project managers on how to handle this sort of "scope creep" problem, in tracking it, being transparent with it, and communicating it to clients such that they understand it. Happy to clarify anything as needed. I really appreciate anyone who takes the time to offer some advice. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Appropriate design / technologies to handle dynamic string formatting?

    - by Mark W
    recently I was tasked with implementing a way of adding support for versioning of hardware packet specifications to one of our libraries. First a bit of information about the project. We have a hardware library which has classes for each of the various commands we support sending to our hardware. These hardware modules are essentially just lights with a few buttons, and a 2 or 4 digit display. The packets typically follow the format {SOH}AADD{ETX}, where AA is our sentinel action code, and DD is the device ID. These packet specs are different from one command to the next obviously, and the different firmware versions we have support different specifications. For example, on version 1 an action code of 14 may have a spec of {SOH}AADDTEXT{ETX} which would be AA = 14 literal, DD = device ID, TEXT = literal text to display on the device. Then we come out with a revision with adds an extended byte(s) onto the end of the packet like this {SOH}AADDTEXTE{ETX}. Assume the TEXT field is fixed width for this example. We have now added a new field onto the end which could be used to say specify the color or flash rate of the text/buttons. Currently this java library only supports one version of the commands, the latest. In our hardware library we would have a class for this command, say a DisplayTextArgs.java. That class would have fields for the device ID, the text, and the extended byte. The command class would expose a method which generates the string ("{SOH}AADDTEXTE{ETX}") using the value from the class. In practice we would create the Args class as needed, populate the fields, call the method to get our packet string, then ship that down across the CAN. Some of our other commands specification can vary for the same command, on the same version, depending on some runtime state. For example, another command for version 1 may be {SOH}AA{ETX}, where this action code clears all of the modules behind a specific controller device of their text. We may overload this packet to have option fields with multiple meanings like {SOH}AAOC{ETX} where OC is literal text, which tells the controller to only clear text on a specific module type, and to leave the others alone, or the spec could also have an option format of {SOH}AADD{ETX} to clear the text off a a specific device. Currently, in the method which generates the packet string, we would evaluate fields on the args class to determine which spec we will be using when formatting the packet. For this example, it would be along the lines of: if m_DeviceID != null then use {SOH}AADD{ETX} else if m_ClearOCs == true then use {SOH}AAOC{EXT} else use {SOH}AA{ETX} I had considered using XML, or a database to store String.format format strings, which were linked to firmware version numbers in some table. We would load them up at startup, and pass in the version number of the hardwares firmware we are currently using (I can query the devices for their firmware version, but the version is not included in all packets as part of the spec). This breaks down pretty quickly because of the dynamic nature of how we select which version of the command to use. I then considered using a rule engine to possibly build out expressions which could be interpreted at runtume, to evaluate the args class's state, and from that select the appropriate format string to use, but my brief look at rule engines for java scared me away with its complexity. While it seems like it might be a viable solution, it seems overly complex. So this is why I am here. I wouldn't say design is my strongest skill, and im having trouble figuring out the best way to approach this problem. I probably wont be able to radically change the args classes, but if the trade off was good enough, I may be able to convince my boss that the change is appropriate. What I would like from the community is some feedback on some best practices / design methodologies / API or other resources which I could use to accomplish: Logic to determine which set of commands to use for a given firmware version Of those command, which version of each command to use (based on the args classes state) Keep the rules logic decoupled from the application so as to avoid needing releases for every firmware version Be simple enough so I don't need weeks of study and trial and error to implement effectively.

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a LINQ query using Moq and Machine.Specifications?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked repository's method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test a LINQ expression using Moq and Machine.Specifications?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    I'm struggling to get my head around how to accommodate a mocked repository's method that only accepts a Linq expression as its argument. Specifically, the repository has a First() method that looks like this: public T First(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).FirstOrDefault(); } The difficulty I'm encountering is with my MSpec tests, where I'm (probably incorrectly) trying to mock that call: public abstract class with_userprofile_repository { protected static Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>> repository; Establish context = () => { repository = new Mock<IRepository<UserProfile>>(); repository.Setup<UserProfile>(x => x.First(up => up.OpenID == @"http://testuser.myopenid.com")).Returns(GetDummyUser()); }; protected static UserProfile GetDummyUser() { UserProfile p = new UserProfile(); p.OpenID = @"http://testuser.myopenid.com"; p.FirstName = "Joe"; p.LastLogin = DateTime.Now.Date.AddDays(-7); p.LastName = "Bloggs"; p.Email = "[email protected]"; return p; } } I run into trouble because it's not enjoying the Linq expression: System.NotSupportedException: Expression up = (up.OpenID = "http://testuser.myopenid.com") is not supported. So how does one test these sorts of scenarios?

    Read the article

  • How to make a great functional specification

    - by sfrj
    I am going to start a little side project very soon, but this time i want to do not just the little UML domain model and case diagrams i often do before programming, i thought about making a full functional specification. Is there anybody that has experience writing functional specifications that could recommend me what i need to add to it? How would be the best way to start preparing it? Here i will write down the topics that i think are more relevant: Purpose Functional Overview Context Diagram Critical Project Success Factors Scope (In & Out) Assumptions Actors (Data Sources, System Actors) Use Case Diagram Process Flow Diagram Activity Diagram Security Requirements Performance Requirements Special Requirements Business Rules Domain Model (Data model) Flow Scenarios (Success, alternate…) Time Schedule (Task Management) Goals System Requirements Expected Expenses What do you think about those topics? Shall i add something else? or maybe remove something?

    Read the article

  • "Do it right, against customer's wishes" - how is it called?

    - by SF.
    We know the optimal situation of negotiating corrections of specifications with the customer, getting the specs to do what the client wanted, not what they said or thought they wanted. That's negotiating, explaining. Sometimes, we're unable to convince the client. We're forced to produce broken as designed. This, called "demonology" by merit of mages summoning demons and demons fulfilling their wishes very literally, causing the mage's demise as result, is another approach that will leave the customer very dissatisfied once they realize their error, and of course try to pin the blame on the developer. Now I just faced a very different approach: the customer created simple specs that fail to account for some critical caveat, and is completely unwilling to fix them, admit the obvious errors and accept suggested corrections. The product made to these specs will be critically broken, and possibly might cost human lives. Still, it's too late to drop the contract entirely. The contract has punitive clauses for that, ones we can't really accept. The boss' decision? We do the work right and lie to the customer that we did it according to the specs. The algorithms in question are hidden deep enough under the surface, the product will do the work just fine, won't fail in the caveat situation, and unless someone digs too deep, they will never discover we didn't break it as requested. Is there some common name for this tactics of execution of specs?

    Read the article

  • Specifying and applying broad changes to a program

    - by Victor Nicollet
    How do you handle incomplete feature requests, when the ones asking for the feature cannot possibly write a complete request? Consider an imaginary situation. You are a tech lead working on a piece of software that revolves around managing profiles (maybe they're contacts in a CRM-type application, or employees in an HR application), with many operations being directly or indirectly performed on those profiles — edit fields, add comments, attach documents, send e-mail... The higher-ups decide that a lock functionality should be added whereby a profile can be locked to prevent anyone else from doing any operations on it until it's unlocked — this feature would be used by security agents to prevent anyone from touching a profile pending a security audit. Obviously, such a feature interacts with many other existing features related to profiles. For example: Can one add a comment to a locked profile? Can one see e-mails that were sent by the system to the owner of a locked profile? Can one see who recently edited a locked profile? If an e-mail was in the process of being sent when the lock happened, is the e-mail sending canceled, delayed or performed as if nothing happened? If I just changed a profile and click the "cancel" link on the confirmation, does the lock prevent the cancel or does it still go through? In all of these cases, how do I tell the user that a lock is in place? Depending on the software, there could be hundreds of such interactions, and each interaction requires a decision — is the lock going to apply and if it does, how will it be displayed to the user? And the higher-ups asking for the feature probably only see a small fraction of these, so you will probably have a lot of questions coming up while you are working on the feature. How would you and your team handle this? Would you expect the higher-ups to come up with a complete description of all cases where the lock should apply (and how), and treat all other cases as if the lock did not exist? Would you try to determine all potential interactions based on existing specifications and code, list them and ask the higher-ups to make a decision on all those where the decision is not obvious? Would you just start working and ask questions as they come up? Would you try to change their minds and settle on a more easily described feature with similar effects? The information about existing features is, as I understand it, in the code — how do you bridge the gap between the decision-makers and that information they cannot access?

    Read the article

  • Determining the required depth and specifications for a server cabinet

    - by Bingu Bingme
    I'm trying to understand the considerations ("why") that go into determining the specifications ("what") for a rackmount server cabinet, in order to determine what sort of rack I should purchase for my home use. Since this is for home use, I won't be following certain best practices (eg. hot/cold aisle, not even air conditioning) and may be willing to sacrifice in various areas in order to reduce cost and footprint - but please advise if there are safety concerns or other considerations to note. The most basic specs for a server cabinet are the dimensions (external width x external depth x usable height). Width: commonly 600mm or 800mm (if the use case requires extra clearance around the sides, such as if there is lots of cabling). In my case and most common cases, I'm going to stick with 600mm. Height: Select a sufficiently tall rack to fit my equipment. But how much may I stuff into it? Eg, if there is a 15U rack, can I really populate it with 15U of servers, or should I leave 1U at top and bottom for air circulation? Depth: Racks commonly have external depth of 600mm (network equipment), 800mm, 1000mm, or even longer. I'm trying to see how to fit into the 800mm depth. With reference to http://www.server-racks.com/rack-mount-depth.html, I'm hoping to have the front and rear posts mounted ~ 28.5" (72cm) apart, which would leave only 8cm for front space and rear space. How much rear space (from rear posts to back of rack) do I really need? I won't use cable management arms, so can I mount a 72cm depth server since the power, KVM, network cables won't take up much depth? My most important equipment are all < 60cm depth (4U chassis) and should comfortably fit within the 800mm cabinet. The rest of the equipment are very old 1U servers that range from 65-72cm depth. I might still want to make further use of them, or I might discard them since they are so old. Even if the 72cm servers cannot be powered on in an 800mm rack, I should be able to use them as 1U shelves. But, what server depth can I expect to be able to operate? Or am I forced to upgrade to 1000mm depth racks in order to use any servers deeper than 60cm? With reference to best practices for HP racks, some other specs and installation considerations: There aren't any minimum recommendations for clearance on the sides of the rack. It is recommended to leave 48" front clearance. The 48" front clearance is based on 32" chassis depth, 13" to extend the rack rails and mate the inner/outer rails, and 3" for movement. If I don't use such rails (eg, use shelves instead), it should be sufficient to leave front clearance of chassis depth + 3". It is recommended to leave 30" rear clearance "to provide space for servicing the rack". I'm planning to back the rack into a corner of the room, and wheel it slightly out when I need to access the rear. If the wheeling plan is ok, I still need to know how much rear clearance is required for air circulation and ventilation purposes. Castor wheels and stabilising feet. Since I'm backing the rack into a corner of the room, I'll only be able to set the stabilising feet on the front corners. Thoughts on safety? The rack that I'm considering has front glass doors with side ventilation slits and fully perforated rear doors. I'm hoping this will be a good balance between temperature and noise (only ventilation slits facing out the front, while the rear is facing the walls). Or is the sound of high-rpm fans going to escape through the front slits anyway and destroy my sanity?

    Read the article

  • R: including model specifications in xtable(anova(...))

    - by HamiltonUlmer
    Hello R comrades: I have a bunch of loglinear models, which, for our purposes will just be glm() objects called mx, my, mz. I want to get a nicely-formatted xtable of the analysis of deviance, so naturally I would want to perform xtable(anova(mx, my, mz, test = "Chisq")). The vanilla output of xtable, however, doesn't include the model specifications. I'd like to include those for all the ANOVA tests I'm running, so if there is not a param I'm missing that does this I'll probably just have to hack up my own solution. But looking over the help page, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to include the model specifications. Any thoughts? Alternatives? If it helps this was done in 2.9.1 with xtable 1.5-5.

    Read the article

  • What format have project managers used for defining features/requirements? [on hold]

    - by Jon
    At the company that I currently work at, Word documents are passed around which contain the features/requirements for the software we write, and those Word docs contain mock-ups (there aren't any use cases that I've seen). I'm just curious what project managers use at other companies. Do some skip making the requirements documents altogether and go straight for a ticket-tracker such as JIRA? What seems to work the best? Thanks, -Jon

    Read the article

  • Formalizing a requirements spec written in narrative English

    - by ProfK
    I have a fairly technical functionality requirements spec, expressed in English prose, produced by my project manager. It is structured as a collection of UI tabs, where the requirements for each tab are expressed as a lit of UI fields and a list of business rules for the tab. Most business rules are for UI fields on a tab, e.g: a) Must be alphanumeric, max length 20. b) Must be a dropdown, with values from table x. c) Is mandatory. d) Is mandatory under certain conditions, e.g. another field is just populated, or has a specific value. Then other business rules get a little more complex. The spec is for a job application, so the central business object (table) is the Applicant, and we have several other tables with one-to-many relationships with applicant, such as Degree, HighSchool, PreviousEmployer, Diploma, etc. e) One such complex rule says a status field can only be assigned a certain value if a many-side record exists in at least one of the many-side tables. E.g. the Applicant has at least one HighSchool or at least one Diploma record. I am looking for advice on how to codify these requirements into a more structured specification defined in terms of tables, fields, and relationships, especially for the conditional rules for fields and for the presence of related records. Any suggestions and advice will be most welcome, but I would be overjoyed if i could find an already defined system or structure for expressing things like this.

    Read the article

  • how do I write a functional specification quickly and efficiently

    - by giddy
    So I just read some fabulous articles by Joel on specs here. (Was written in 2000!!) I read all 4 parts, but Im looking for some methodical approaches to writing my specs. Im the only lonely dev, working on this fairly complicated app (or family of apps) for a very well known finance company. I've never made something this serious, I started out writing something like a bad spec, an overview of some sorts, and it has wasted a LOT of my time. Ive also made 3 mockup-kinda-thingies for my client so I have a good understanding of what they want. Also released a preview (a throw away working app with the most basic workflow), and Ive only written and tested some of the very core/base systems. I think the mistake Ive been making so far is not writing a detailed spec, so Im getting to it now. So the whole thing comprises of An MVC website (for admins & data viewing) 2 Silverlight modules (For 2 specific tasks) 1 Desktop Application Im totally short on time, resources and need to get this done quick, also, need to make sure these guys read it up equally quick and painlessly. So how do I go about it, Im looking for any tips, any real world stuff, how do you guys usually do it? Do you make a mock screenie of every dialog/form/page? Im thinking of making a dummy asp.net web forms project, then filling in html files in folders and making it look like my mvc url structure. Then having a section in the spec for the website and write up a page for every URL Ive got with a screenie. For my win forms app, Ive made somewhat of a demo Win Form project, would I then put in a dialog or stucture everything as I would in the real app and then screen shot it?

    Read the article

  • Estimating time for planning and technical design using Evidence Based Scheduling

    - by Turgs
    I'm at the beginning of a development project in a large organization. The Functional Requirements are currently being worked out and documented with our business stakeholders by our Enterprise Design department. I'm required to produce Technical Design Documents and manage the team to actually build the solution. I'm wanting to try Evidence Based Scheduling, but as I understand, part of that is breaking the job down into small tasks that are less than 14 hours in duration, which requires me to have already done the Technical Design. Therefore, can Evidence Based Scheduling only be used after the Technical Design has been done? How do you then plan and estimate the time it may take to come up with the Technical Design?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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