Search Results

Search found 24043 results on 962 pages for 'private methods'.

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 264/962 | < Previous Page | 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271  | Next Page >

  • Is it OK to repeat code for unit tests?

    - by Pete
    I wrote some sorting algorithms for a class assignment and I also wrote a few tests to make sure the algorithms were implemented correctly. My tests are only like 10 lines long and there are 3 of them but only 1 line changes between the 3 so there is a lot of repeated code. Is it better to refactor this code into another method that is then called from each test? Wouldn't I then need to write another test to test the refactoring? Some of the variables can even be moved up to the class level. Should testing classes and methods follow the same rules as regular classes/methods? Here's an example: [TestMethod] public void MergeSortAssertArrayIsSorted() { int[] a = new int[1000]; Random rand = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond); for(int i = 0; i < a.Length; i++) { a[i] = rand.Next(Int16.MaxValue); } int[] b = new int[1000]; a.CopyTo(b, 0); List<int> temp = b.ToList(); temp.Sort(); b = temp.ToArray(); MergeSort merge = new MergeSort(); merge.mergeSort(a, 0, a.Length - 1); CollectionAssert.AreEqual(a, b); } [TestMethod] public void InsertionSortAssertArrayIsSorted() { int[] a = new int[1000]; Random rand = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond); for (int i = 0; i < a.Length; i++) { a[i] = rand.Next(Int16.MaxValue); } int[] b = new int[1000]; a.CopyTo(b, 0); List<int> temp = b.ToList(); temp.Sort(); b = temp.ToArray(); InsertionSort merge = new InsertionSort(); merge.insertionSort(a); CollectionAssert.AreEqual(a, b); }

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2003: Router, DHCP, Looses internet connection

    - by jM2.me
    I have following setup: a windows server 2003 dedicated server with tho nics. One is connected to internet (no modem/router), and second one is connected to private network. Server has DHCP server installed on it and internet nic is being shared for internet access. The problem is sometimes server looses connection to the internet, so same happens to private network. So far I can manually fix it by releasing and renewing IP address. What could be the cause of this problem? DHCP lease from ISP? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Guidelines For Link Building

    If done well, link building can sky rocket your search engine page rank. Stick to natural simulation methods instead of opting for tempting shortcuts which can get your website blocked by search engines. Here are a set of guidelines that you should follow for link building:

    Read the article

  • Introduction to SQL Server 2008 Extended Events

    SQL Server 2008 Extended Events are the new low level, high performance eventing system in SQL Server. They use less system resources and provide better tracking of SQL Server performance than previous methods like Perfmon and SQL Trace/Profiler events.

    Read the article

  • duplicity can't find remote backup directory?

    - by leeand00
    Using my private key to do so, this command allows me to connect to /home/backupUser/backup just fine: $ sudo sftp -oPort=7843 [email protected]:backup However when I run duplicity, I get the following error: duplicity full --exclude ... / scp://backupUser:[email protected]:7843:/backup bash: [email protected]:7843./backup: No such file or directory I'm under the assumption that duplicity would interpret the /backup path as relative to the user's home directory. But since the above command didn't work, I also tried leaving off the / in the backup directory at the end of the command, i.e. duplicity full --exclude ... / scp://backupUser:[email protected]:7843:backup bash: [email protected]:7843:backup: command not found Is there something I'm missing here, like adding the passcode for the private key to make this command work?

    Read the article

  • Samba domain trust errors on a specific interface

    - by John K
    We have a windows domain that also has RHEL member servers in it. All the servers have a primary network connection to the LAN, but some servers also have private dedicated links to one of our RHEL servers, which serves as a head to our SAN storage. This particular server is running Samba 3.5.15, and is running in domain authentication mode. Users can access shares on this server without a problem over the LAN connection from our Windows servers, but if a user tries to access the shares over a private link (i.e. a 192.168.1.2 address to the RHEL server) users get an error "The trust relationship between this workstation and the primary domain failed."

    Read the article

  • Validating User Input with ASP.NET 3.5

    In the first part of this three-part series explaining the basics of user input validation in ASP.NET 3.5 you were introduced to the concepts of user input validation and saw a sample configuration of the RequiredFieldValidator web controls. In this part you will learn about several types of input validation web controls and their methods of configuration.... Charter Business Bundle? Get High Speed Internet & Telephone for Only $99/Monthly. Limited-Time Offer!

    Read the article

  • Design Pattern for Skipping Steps in a Wizard

    - by Eric J.
    I'm designing a flexible Wizard system that presents a number of screens to complete a task. Some screens may need to be skipped based on answers to prompts on one or more previous screens. The conditions to skip a given screen need to be editable by a non-technical user via a UI. Multiple conditions need only be combined with and. I have an initial design in mind, but it feels inelegant. I wonder if there's a better way to approach this class of problem. Initial Design UI where The first column allows the user to select a question from a previous screen. The second column allows the user to select an operator applicable to the type of question asked. The third column allows the user to enter one or more values depending on the selected operator. Object Model public enum Operations { ... } public class Condition { int QuestionId { get; set; } Operations Operation { get; set; } List<object> Parameters { get; private set; } } List<Condition> pageSkipConditions; Controller Logic bool allConditionsTrue = pageSkipConditions.Count > 0; foreach (Condition c in pageSkipConditions) { allConditionsTrue &= Evaluate(previousAnswers, c); } // ... private bool Evaluate(List<Answers> previousAnswers, Condition c) { switch (c.Operation) { case Operations.StartsWith: // logic for this operation // etc. } }

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a method which breaks "The law of Demeter" principle?

    - by dreza
    I often find myself breaking this principle (not intentially, just through bad design). However recently I've seen a bit of code that I'm not sure of the best approach. I have a number of classes. For simplicity I've taken out the bulk of the classes methods etc public class Paddock { public SoilType Soil { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around paddock information } public class SoilType { public SoilDrainageType Drainage { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around soil types } public class SoilDrainageType { // a whole bunch of public properties that expose soil drainage values public double GetProportionOfDrainage(SoilType soil, double blockRatio) { // This method does a number of calculations using public properties // exposed off SoilType as well as the blockRatio value in some conditions } } In the code I have seen in a number of places calls like so paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); or within the block object itself in places it's Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.Soil, this.GetBlockRatio()); Upon reading this seems to break "The Law of Demeter" in that I'm chaining together these properties to access the method I want. So my thought in order to adjust this was to create public methods on SoilType and Paddock that contains wrappers i.e. on paddock it would be public class Paddock { public double GetProportionOfDrainage() { return Soil.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.GetBlockRatio()); } } on the SoilType it would be public class SoilType { public double GetProportionOfDrainage(double blockRatio) { return Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this, blockRatio); } } so now calls where it used would be simply // used outside of paddock class where we can access instances of Paddock paddock.GetProportionofDrainage() or this.GetProportionOfDrainage(); // if used within Paddock class This seemed like a nice alternative. However now I have a concern over how would I enforce this usage and stop anyone else from writing code such as paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); rather than just paddock.GetProportionOfDrainage(); I need the properties to remain public at this stage as they are too ingrained in usage throughout the code block. However I don't really want a mixture of accessing the method on DrainageType directly as that seems to defeat the purpose altogether. What would be the appropiate design approach in this situation? I can provide more information as required to better help in answers. Is my thoughts on refactoring this even appropiate or should is it best to leave it as is and use the property chaining to access the method as and when required?

    Read the article

  • Making Money by Building a Portfolio of Established Websites

    There are many ways that you can use a website to make money. However, you will need to understand that not all of these methods will require of you to sell a certain product or service directly to the visitor on your site. In addition to this, you can make money from more than one site, instead of trying to make a lot of money from a single site.

    Read the article

  • Can the Abstract Factory pattern be considered as a case of polymorphism?

    - by rogcg
    I was looking for a pattern/solution that allows me call a method as a runtime exception in a group of different methods without using Reflection. I've recently become aware of the Abstract Factory Pattern. To me, it looks so much like polymorphism, and I thought it could be a case of polymorphism but without the super class WidgetFactory, as you can see in the example of the link above. Am I correct in this assumption?

    Read the article

  • Are dynamic languages at disadvantage for agile development?

    - by Gerenuk
    From what I've read agile development often involves refactoring or reverse engineering code into diagrams. Of course there is much more than that, but if we consider the practices that rely on these two methods, are dynamically typed languages at disadvantage? It seem static typing would make refactoring and reverse engineering much easier? Refactoring or (automated) reverse engineering is hard if not impossible in dynamically typed languages? What does real world projects tell about usage of dynamically typed languages for agile methodology?

    Read the article

  • NAT and NGINX on the same server

    - by Morten
    I'm setting up a VPC cluster for my collaborative todo list application www.getdoneapp.com. To have my servers on the private network I need a NAT server so my servers on the private network can connect to the internet to receive updates and what not. The NAT server will consume an elastic IP address, so I'm wondering if I can just have that NAT server run nginx to direct traffic to my internal servers for HTTP. So the question is, is it a bad idea to run NGINX and NAT on the same server, or should I go for consuming 2 elastic IP addresses?

    Read the article

  • 404s on password protected content

    - by tjb1982
    I'm new to WordPress and SEO, generally, but we've been running into problems with our site that don't seem to make sense to me. The problem is that our editor likes to schedule posts and/or mark them private until she is ready to make them public, but somehow Google is crawling these posts and getting 404s (because they are password protected). How does Google know they exist in the first place? I checked the sitemap.xml file and don't see a record of the post. One of the offending posts was marked public, but is scheduled for a future date. Could that have something to do with it? I've tried to Google the answer, and I came up with a good amount of reassurance that this won't hurt the site, but I'm still wondering how it's happening in the first place. It's hard because I don't know exactly what the editor's workflow is. Is it possible she's posting publicly first and then revising it to be private only after it's too late? Does anyone know how Google finds WordPress URLs it shouldn't have access to?

    Read the article

  • C# TextBox

    A TextBox control accepts user input on a Form. In this article, I will discuss how to create a TextBox control in Windows Forms at design-time as well as run-time. After that, I will continue discussing various properties and methods available for the TextBox control.

    Read the article

  • Get to No as fast as possible

    - by Tim Hibbard
    There is a sales technique where the strategy is to get the customer to say “No deal” as soon as possible.  The idea being that by establishing terms that your customer is not comfortable with with, the sooner you can figure out what they will be willing to agree to.  The same principal can be applied to code design.  Instead of nested if…then statements, a code block should quickly eliminate the cases it is not equipped to handle and just focus on what it is meant to handle. This is code that will quickly become maintainable as requirements change: private void SaveClient(Client c) { if (c != null) { if (c.BirthDate != DateTime.MinValue) { foreach (Sale s in c.Sales) { if (s.IsProcessed) { SaveSaleToDatabase(s); } } SaveClientToDatabase(c); } } }   If an additional requirement comes along that requires the Client to have Manager approval or for a Sale to be under $20K, this code will get messy and unreadable. A better way to meet the same requirements would be: private void SaveClient(Client c) { if (c == null) { return; } if (c.BirthDate == DateTime.MinValue) { return; }   foreach (Sale s in c.Save) { if (!s.IsProcessed) { continue; } SaveSaleToDatabase(s); } SaveClientToDatabase(c); } This technique moves on quickly when it finds something it doesn’t like.  This makes it much easier to add a Manager approval constraint.  We would just insert the new requirement before the action takes place.

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Making a class pseudo-immutable by setting a flag

    - by scott_fakename
    I have a java project that involves building some pretty complex objects. There are quite a lot (dozens) of different ones and some of them have a HUGE number of parameters. They also need to be immutable. So I was thinking the builder pattern would work, but it ends up require a lot of boilerplate. Another potential solution I thought of was to make a mutable class, but give it a "frozen" flag, a-la ruby. Here is a simple example: public class EqualRule extends Rule { private boolean frozen; private int target; public EqualRule() { frozen = false; } public void setTarget(int i) { if (frozen) throw new IllegalStateException( "Can't change frozen rule."); target = i; } public int getTarget() { return target; } public void freeze() { frozen = true; } @Override public boolean checkRule(int i) { return (target == i); } } and "Rule" is just an abstract class that has an abstract "checkRule" method. This cuts way down on the number of objects I need to write, while also giving me an object that becomes immutable for all intents and purposes. This kind of act like the object was its own Builder... But not quite. I'm not too excited, however, about having an immutable being disguised as a bean however. So I had two questions: 1. Before I go too far down this path, are there any huge problems that anyone sees right off the bat? For what it's worth, it is planned that this behavior will be well documented... 2. If so, is there a better solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • libGDX using Stage and Actor produces different camera angles on desktop and Android Phone

    - by Brandon
    libGDX using Stage and Actor produces different camera angles on desktop and Android Phone. Here are pictures demonstrating the problem: http://brandonyuh.minus.com/mFpdTSgN17VUq On the desktop version, the image takes up most all the screen. On the Android phone it only takes up a bit of the screen. Here's the code (not my actual project but I isolated the problem): package com.me.mygdxgame2; import com.badlogic.gdx.*; import com.badlogic.gdx.graphics.*; import com.badlogic.gdx.graphics.Texture.TextureFilter; import com.badlogic.gdx.graphics.g2d.*; import com.badlogic.gdx.scenes.scene2d.*; public class MyGdxGame2 implements ApplicationListener { private Stage stage; public void create() { stage = new Stage(); stage.addActor(new ActorHi()); } public void render() { Gdx.gl.glClearColor(0, 1, 0, 1); Gdx.gl.glClear(GL10.GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); stage.draw(); } public void dispose() {} public void resize(int width, int height) {} public void pause() {} public void resume() {} public class ActorHi extends Actor { private Sprite sprite; public ActorHi() { Texture texture = new Texture(Gdx.files.internal("data/hi.png")); texture.setFilter(TextureFilter.Linear, TextureFilter.Linear); sprite = new Sprite(new TextureRegion(texture, 0, 0, 128, 128)); sprite.setBounds(0, 0, 300.0f, 300.0f); } public void draw(SpriteBatch batch, float parentAlpha) { sprite.draw(batch); } } } hi.png is included in the above link Thank you very much for answering my question. I've spent 3 days trying to figure it out.

    Read the article

  • Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

    - by DigitalMoss
    Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

    Read the article

  • White Label SEO Service - Making Money Online

    The online world is gaining popularity day by day. Almost everything is possible sitting at home just at a click of a mouse. As a matter of fact, there are several methods or programs especially the ones involving selling SEO that have come up lately, which can help you make some good money online.

    Read the article

  • Android Game Development problem whith size and speed

    - by Charlton Santana
    I have been coding speed for an object. I have made it so the object will move from one end of the screen to another at a speed depending on the screen size, at the monemt I have made it so it will take one second to pass the screen. So i have worked out the speed in code but when I go to assign the speed it tells me to force close and i do not understand why. Here is the code: MainGame Code: @Override protected void onDraw(Canvas canvas) { setBlockSpeed(getWidth()); } private int blockSpeed; private void setBlockSpeed(int screenWidth){ Log.d(TAG, "screenWidth " + screenWidth); blockSpeed = screenWidth / 100; // 100 is the FPS.. i want it to take 1 second to pass the screen Math.round(blockSpeed); // to make it a whole number block.speed = blockSpeed; // if i dont put blockSpeed and put eg 8 it still tells me to force close } Block.java Code: public int speed; public void draw(Canvas canvas) { canvas.drawBitmap(bitmap, x - (bitmap.getWidth() / 2), y - (bitmap.getHeight() / 2), null); if(dontmove == 0){ this.x -= speed; } }

    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 | 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271  | Next Page >