Search Results

Search found 177 results on 8 pages for 'assertions'.

Page 3/8 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

• Is Java assert broken?

  - by BlairHippo

  While poking around the questions, I recently discovered the assert keyword in Java. At first, I was excited. Something useful I didn't already know! A more efficient way for me to check the validity of input parameters! Yay learning! But then I took a closer look, and my enthusiasm was not so much "tempered" as "snuffed-out completely" by one simple fact: you can turn assertions off.* This sounds like a nightmare. If I'm asserting that I don't want the code to keep going if the input listOfStuff is null, why on earth would I want that assertion ignored? It sounds like if I'm debugging a piece of production code and suspect that listOfStuff may have been erroneously passed a null but don't see any logfile evidence of that assertion being triggered, I can't trust that listOfStuff actually got sent a valid value; I also have to account for the possibility that assertions may have been turned off entirely. And this assumes that I'm the one debugging the code. Somebody unfamiliar with assertions might see that and assume (quite reasonably) that if the assertion message doesn't appear in the log, listOfStuff couldn't be the problem. If your first encounter with assert was in the wild, would it even occur to you that it could be turned-off entirely? It's not like there's a command-line option that lets you disable try/catch blocks, after all. All of which brings me to my question (and this is a question, not an excuse for a rant! I promise!): What am I missing? Is there some nuance that renders Java's implementation of assert far more useful than I'm giving it credit for? Is the ability to enable/disable it from the command line actually incredibly valuable in some contexts? Am I misconceptualizing it somehow when I envision using it in production code in lieu of statements like if (listOfStuff == null) barf();? I just feel like there's something important here that I'm not getting. *Okay, technically speaking, they're actually off by default; you have to go out of your way to turn them on. But still, you can knock them out entirely.

  Read the article

• DTracing a PHPUnit Test: Looking at Functional Programming

  - by cj

  Here's a quick example of using DTrace Dynamic Tracing to work out what a PHP code base does. I was reading the article Functional Programming in PHP by Patkos Csaba and wondering how efficient this stype of programming is. I thought this would be a good time to fire up DTrace and see what is going on. Since DTrace is "always available" even in production machines (once PHP is compiled with --enable-dtrace), this was easy to do. I have Oracle Linux with the UEK3 kernel and PHP 5.5 with DTrace static probes enabled, as described in DTrace PHP Using Oracle Linux 'playground' Pre-Built Packages I installed the Functional Programming sample code and Sebastian Bergmann's PHPUnit. Although PHPUnit is included in the Functional Programming example, I found it easier to separately download and use its phar file: cd ~/Desktop wget -O master.zip https://github.com/tutsplus/functional-programming-in-php/archive/master.zip wget https://phar.phpunit.de/phpunit.phar unzip master.zip I created a DTrace D script functree.d: #pragma D option quiet self int indent; BEGIN { topfunc = $1; } php$target:::function-entry /copyinstr(arg0) == topfunc/ { self->follow = 1; } php$target:::function-entry /self->follow/ { self->indent += 2; printf("%*s %s%s%s\n", self->indent, "->", arg3?copyinstr(arg3):"", arg4?copyinstr(arg4):"", copyinstr(arg0)); } php$target:::function-return /self->follow/ { printf("%*s %s%s%s\n", self->indent, "<-", arg3?copyinstr(arg3):"", arg4?copyinstr(arg4):"", copyinstr(arg0)); self->indent -= 2; } php$target:::function-return /copyinstr(arg0) == topfunc/ { self->follow = 0; } This prints a PHP script function call tree starting from a given PHP function name. This name is passed as a parameter to DTrace, and assigned to the variable topfunc when the DTrace script starts. With this D script, choose a PHP function that isn't recursive, or modify the script to set self->follow = 0 only when all calls to that function have unwound. From looking at the sample FunSets.php code and its PHPUnit test driver FunSetsTest.php, I settled on one test function to trace: function testUnionContainsAllElements() { ... } I invoked DTrace to trace function calls invoked by this test with # dtrace -s ./functree.d -c 'php phpunit.phar \ /home/cjones/Desktop/functional-programming-in-php-master/FunSets/Tests/FunSetsTest.php' \ '"testUnionContainsAllElements"' The core of this command is a call to PHP to run PHPUnit on the FunSetsTest.php script. Outside that, DTrace is called and the PID of PHP is passed to the D script $target variable so the probes fire just for this invocation of PHP. Note the quoting around the PHP function name passed to DTrace. The parameter must have double quotes included so DTrace knows it is a string. The output is: PHPUnit 3.7.28 by Sebastian Bergmann. ......-> FunSetsTest::testUnionContainsAllElements -> FunSets::singletonSet <- FunSets::singletonSet -> FunSets::singletonSet <- FunSets::singletonSet -> FunSets::union <- FunSets::union -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isTrue -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsTrue::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertTrue -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> FunSets::contains -> FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains <- FunSets::{closure} <- FunSets::contains -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertFalse -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isFalse -> {closure} -> main <- main <- {closure} <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::isFalse -> PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::count -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate -> PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsFalse::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint_IsFalse::matches <- PHPUnit_Framework_Constraint::evaluate <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertThat <- PHPUnit_Framework_Assert::assertFalse <- FunSetsTest::testUnionContainsAllElements ... Time: 1.85 seconds, Memory: 3.75Mb OK (9 tests, 23 assertions) The periods correspond to the successful tests before and after (and from) the test I was tracing. You can see the function entry ("->") and return ("<-") points. Cross checking with the testUnionContainsAllElements() source code confirms the two singletonSet() calls, one union() call, two assertTrue() calls and finally an assertFalse() call. These assertions have a contains() call as a parameter, so contains() is called before the PHPUnit assertion functions are run. You can see contains() being called recursively, and how the closures are invoked. If you want to focus on the application logic and suppress the PHPUnit function trace, you could turn off tracing when assertions are being checked by adding D clauses checking the entry and exit of assertFalse() and assertTrue(). But if you want to see all of PHPUnit's code flow, you can modify the functree.d code that sets and unsets self-follow, and instead change it to toggle the variable in request-startup and request-shutdown probes: php$target:::request-startup { self->follow = 1 } php$target:::request-shutdown { self->follow = 0 } Be prepared for a large amount of output!

  Read the article

• L'inventeur du pi-calcul est mort, Robin Milner nous quitte à 76 ans

  L'inventeur du pi-calcul est mort, Robin Milner nous quitte à 76 ans Robin Milner est décédé hier à Cambridge, où il fut professeur à l'Université (ainsi qu'à celles de Londres, Swansea, Edimbourg et Stanford). Informaticien anglais, il a fait trois découvertes principales dans sa carrière, qui ont largement contribué à l'évolution de l'informatique moderne et qui lui valurent de se voir attribuer le prix Turing en 1991 : - LCF, le premier système de preuves automatiques, utilisé pour démontrer automatiquement des assertions mathématiques - Le langage ML - La théorie d'analyse des systèmes concurrents (calculus of communicating systems, CCS) et son successeur, le pi-calcul RIP Robin...

  Read the article

• More on Map Testing

  - by Michael Stephenson

  I have been chatting with Maurice den Heijer recently about his codeplex project for the BizTalk Map Testing Framework (http://mtf.codeplex.com/). Some of you may remember the article I did for BizTalk 2009 and 2006 about how to test maps but with Maurice's project he is effectively looking at how to improve productivity and quality by building some useful testing features within the framework to simplify the process of testing maps. As part of our discussion we realized that we both had slightly different approaches to how we validate the output from the map. Put simple Maurice does some xpath validation of the data in various nodes where as my approach for most standard cases is to use serialization to allow you to validate the output using normal MSTest assertions. I'm not really going to go into the pro's and con's of each approach because I think there is a place for both and also I'm sure others have various approaches which work too. What would be great is for the map testing framework to provide support for different ways of testing which can cover everything from simple cases to some very specialized scenarios. So as agreed with Maurice I have done the sample which I will talk about in the rest of this article to show how we can use the serialization approach to create and compare the input and output from a map in normal development testing. Prerequisites One of the common patterns I usually implement when developing BizTalk solutions is to use xsd.exe to create .net classes for most of the schemas used within the solution. In the testing pattern I will take advantage of these .net classes. The Map In this sample the map we will use is very simple and just concatenates some data from the input message to the output message. Hopefully the below picture illustrates this well. The Test In the test I'm basically taking the following actions: Use the .net class generated from the schema to create an input message for the map Serialize the input object to a file Run the map from .net using the standard BizTalk test method which was generated for running the map Deserialize the output file from the map execution to a .net class representing the output schema Use MsTest assertions to validate things about the output message The below picture shows this: As you can see the code for this is pretty simple and it's all strongly typed which means changes to my schema which can affect the tests can be easily picked up as compilation errors. I can then chose to have one test which validates most of the output from the map, or to have many specific tests covering individual scenarios within the map. Summary Hopefully this post illustrates a powerful yet simple way of effectively testing many BizTalk mapping scenarios. I will probably have more conversations with Maurice about these approaches and perhaps some of the above will be included in the mapping test framework.   The sample can be downloaded from here: http://cid-983a58358c675769.office.live.com/self.aspx/Blog%20Samples/More%20Map%20Testing/MapTestSample.zip

  Read the article

• What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

  - by S.Robins

  I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

  Read the article

• Doing your first mock with JustMock

  - by mehfuzh

  In this post, i will start with a  more traditional mocking example that  includes a fund transfer scenario between two different currency account using JustMock.Our target interface that we will be mocking looks similar to: public interface ICurrencyService {     float GetConversionRate(string fromCurrency, string toCurrency); } Moving forward the SUT or class that will be consuming the  service and will be invoked by user [provided that the ICurrencyService will be passed in a DI style] looks like: public class AccountService : IAccountService         {             private readonly ICurrencyService currencyService;               public AccountService(ICurrencyService currencyService)             {                 this.currencyService = currencyService;             }               #region IAccountService Members               public void TransferFunds(Account from, Account to, float amount)             {                 from.Withdraw(amount);                 float conversionRate = currencyService.GetConversionRate(from.Currency, to.Currency);                 float convertedAmount = amount * conversionRate;                 to.Deposit(convertedAmount);             }               #endregion         }   As, we can see there is a TransferFunds action implemented from IAccountService  takes in a source account from where it withdraws some money and a target account to where the transfer takes place using the provided conversion rate. Our first step is to create the mock. The syntax for creating your instance mocks is pretty much same and  is valid for all interfaces, non-sealed/sealed concrete instance classes. You can pass in additional stuffs like whether its an strict mock or not, by default all the mocks in JustMock are loose, you can use it as default valued objects or stubs as well. ICurrencyService currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>(); Using JustMock, setting up your expectations and asserting them always goes with Mock.Arrang|Assert and this is pretty much same syntax no matter what type of mocking you are doing. Therefore,  in the above scenario we want to make sure that the conversion rate always returns 2.20F when converting from GBP to CAD. To do so we need to arrange in the following way: Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("GBP", "CAD")).Returns(2.20f).MustBeCalled(); Here, I have additionally marked the mock call as must. That means it should be invoked anywhere in the code before we do Mock.Assert, we can also assert mocks directly though lamda expressions  but the more general Mock.Assert(mocked) will assert only the setups that are marked as "MustBeCalled()”. Now, coming back to the main topic , as we setup the mock, now its time to act on it. Therefore, first we create our account service class and create our from and to accounts respectively. var accountService = new AccountService(currencyService);   var canadianAccount = new Account(0, "CAD"); var britishAccount = new Account(0, "GBP"); Next, we add some money to the GBP  account: britishAccount.Deposit(100); Finally, we do our transfer by the following: accountService.TransferFunds(britishAccount, canadianAccount, 100); Once, everything is completed, we need to make sure that things were as it is we have expected, so its time for assertions.Here, we first do the general assertions: Assert.Equal(0, britishAccount.Balance); Assert.Equal(220, canadianAccount.Balance); Following, we do our mock assertion,  as have marked the call as “MustBeCalled” it will make sure that our mock is actually invoked. Moreover, we can add filters like how many times our expected mock call has occurred that will be covered in coming posts. Mock.Assert(currencyService); So far, that actually concludes our  first  mock with JustMock and do stay tuned for more. Enjoy!!

  Read the article

• Why is "rake tests" running an empty suite when I use shoulda?

  - by ryeguy

  So here is my test suite: class ReleaseTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase should_not_allow_values_for :title, '', 'blah', 'blah blah' should_allow_values_for :title, 'blah - bleh', 'blah blah - bleh bleh' def test_something assert true end end Shoulda's macros generate 5 tests, and then I have test_something below (just to see if that would matter), totalling 6 tests. They all pass as you can see below, but then it runs a 0-test suite. This happens even if I completely empty out ReleaseTest. This problem only exists if I have config.gem 'shoulda' in my environment.rb. If I explicitly do require 'shoulda' at the top of my tests, everything works fine. What would be causing this? /usr/bin/ruby -e STDOUT.sync=true;STDERR.sync=true;load($0=ARGV.shift) /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/bin/rake test Testing started at 6:58 PM ... (in /home/rlepidi/projects/rails/testproject) /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" "test/unit/release_test.rb" Loaded suite /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader Started ...... Finished in 0.029335778 seconds. 6 tests, 6 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 -I"lib:test" "/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake/rake_test_loader.rb" Loaded suite /var/lib/gems/1.9.1/bin/rake Started Finished in 0.000106717 seconds. 0 tests, 0 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 0% passed Empty test suite.

  Read the article

• Using unset member variables within a class or struct

  - by Doug Kavendek

  It's pretty nice to catch some really obvious errors when using unset local variables or when accessing a class or struct's members directly prior to initializing them. In visual studio 2008 you get an "uninitialized local variable used" warning at compile-time and get a run-time check failure at the point of access when debugging. However, if you access an uninitialized struct's member variable through one of its functions, you don't get any warnings or assertions. Obviously the easiest solution is don't do that, but nobody's perfect. For example: struct Test { float GetMember() const { return member; } float member; }; Test test; float f1 = test.member; // Raises warning, asserts in VS debugger at runtime float f2 = test.GetMember(); // No problem, just keeps on going This surprised me, but it makes some sense -- the compiler can't assume calling a function on an unused struct is an error, or how else would you initialize or construct it? And anything fancier just quickly brings up so many other complications that it makes sense that it wouldn't bother classifying which functions are ok to call and when, especially just as a debugging help. I know I can set up my own assertions or error checking within the class itself, but that can complicate some simpler structs. Still, it would seem like within the context of the function call, wouldn't it know insides GetMember() that member wasn't initialized yet? I'm assuming it's not only relying on static compile-time deduction, given the Run-Time Check Failure #3 it raises during execution, so based on my current understanding of it it would seem reasonable for the same checks to apply. Is this just a limitation of this specific compiler/debugger (Visual Studio 2008), or more tied to how C++ works?

  Read the article

• matching certain numbers at the end of a string

  - by user697473

  I have a vector of strings: s <- c('abc1', 'abc2', 'abc3', 'abc11', 'abc12', 'abcde1', 'abcde2', 'abcde3', 'abcde11', 'abcde12', 'nonsense') I would like a regular expression to match only the strings that begin with abc and end with 3, 11, or 12. In other words, the regex has to exclude abc1 but not abc11, abc2 but not abc12, and so on. I thought that this would be easy to do with lookahead assertions, but I haven't found a way. Is there one? EDIT: Thanks to posters below for pointing out a serious ambiguity in the original post. In reality, I have many strings. They all end in digits: some in 0, some in 9, some in the digits in between. I am looking for a regex that will match all strings except those that end with a letter followed by a 1 or a 2. (The regex should also match only those strings that start with abc, but that's an easy problem.) I tried to use negative lookahead assertions to create such a regex. But I didn't have any success.

  Read the article

• Your thoughts on Best Practices for Scientific Computing?

  - by John Smith

  A recent paper by Wilson et al (2014) pointed out 24 Best Practices for scientific programming. It's worth to have a look. I would like to hear opinions about these points from experienced programmers in scientific data analysis. Do you think these advices are helpful and practical? Or are they good only in an ideal world? Wilson G, Aruliah DA, Brown CT, Chue Hong NP, Davis M, Guy RT, Haddock SHD, Huff KD, Mitchell IM, Plumbley MD, Waugh B, White EP, Wilson P (2014) Best Practices for Scientific Computing. PLoS Biol 12:e1001745. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001745 Box 1. Summary of Best Practices Write programs for people, not computers. (a) A program should not require its readers to hold more than a handful of facts in memory at once. (b) Make names consistent, distinctive, and meaningful. (c) Make code style and formatting consistent. Let the computer do the work. (a) Make the computer repeat tasks. (b) Save recent commands in a file for re-use. (c) Use a build tool to automate workflows. Make incremental changes. (a) Work in small steps with frequent feedback and course correction. (b) Use a version control system. (c) Put everything that has been created manually in version control. Don’t repeat yourself (or others). (a) Every piece of data must have a single authoritative representation in the system. (b) Modularize code rather than copying and pasting. (c) Re-use code instead of rewriting it. Plan for mistakes. (a) Add assertions to programs to check their operation. (b) Use an off-the-shelf unit testing library. (c) Turn bugs into test cases. (d) Use a symbolic debugger. Optimize software only after it works correctly. (a) Use a profiler to identify bottlenecks. (b) Write code in the highest-level language possible. Document design and purpose, not mechanics. (a) Document interfaces and reasons, not implementations. (b) Refactor code in preference to explaining how it works. (c) Embed the documentation for a piece of software in that software. Collaborate. (a) Use pre-merge code reviews. (b) Use pair programming when bringing someone new up to speed and when tackling particularly tricky problems. (c) Use an issue tracking tool. I'm relatively new to serious programming for scientific data analysis. When I tried to write code for pilot analyses of some of my data last year, I encountered tremendous amount of bugs both in my code and data. Bugs and errors had been around me all the time, but this time it was somewhat overwhelming. I managed to crunch the numbers at last, but I thought I couldn't put up with this mess any longer. Some actions must be taken. Without a sophisticated guide like the article above, I started to adopt "defensive style" of programming since then. A book titled "The Art of Readable Code" helped me a lot. I deployed meticulous input validations or assertions for every function, renamed a lot of variables and functions for better readability, and extracted many subroutines as reusable functions. Recently, I introduced Git and SourceTree for version control. At the moment, because my co-workers are much more reluctant about these issues, the collaboration practices (8a,b,c) have not been introduced. Actually, as the authors admitted, because all of these practices take some amount of time and effort to introduce, it may be generally hard to persuade your reluctant collaborators to comply them. I think I'm asking your opinions because I still suffer from many bugs despite all my effort on many of these practices. Bug fix may be, or should be, faster than before, but I couldn't really measure the improvement. Moreover, much of my time has been invested on defence, meaning that I haven't actually done much data analysis (offence) these days. Where is the point I should stop at in terms of productivity? I've already deployed: 1a,b,c, 2a, 3a,b,c, 4b,c, 5a,d, 6a,b, 7a,7b I'm about to have a go at: 5b,c Not yet: 2b,c, 4a, 7c, 8a,b,c (I could not really see the advantage of using GNU make (2c) for my purpose. Could anyone tell me how it helps my work with MATLAB?)

  Read the article

• Does TOR protect privacy of bittorrent clients like Transmission?

  - by rocky

  I am using the Tor bundle and its included browser to initiate torrent downloads with the Transmission client included with Lubuntu. Clicking on a torrent link provides a warning message that external apps are NOT protected by Tor and clicking ok results in normal Transmission start and it begins the download. I have seen assertions in another post answer that Tor starts Transmission using a different profile than the normal $HOME/.config/transmission. However, I see no evidence of the referenced different profile on my system ( $HOME/tor-browser_en-US/.config/transmission). The normal privacy settings provided within Transmission seem inadequate for privacy according to what I have read. Has something changed in how Tor bundle browser (firefox) interacts with supporting apps like Transmission. Tor bundle otherwise seems to be operating correctly. I asked the question in the post but it was deleted by moderator for some reason not given

  Read the article

• CDbException: CDbConnection failed to open the DB connection

  - by Vinay Rajput

  Hi I am new to ubuntu and php mysql, i have intalled xampp and learning Yii, but while testing a script i got this problem, not able to figure out the solution, i have been through many forums solutions but none of them worked for me. Please help. 1) DbTest::testConnection CDbException: CDbConnection failed to open the DB connection. /opt/lampp/htdocs/YiiRoot/framework/db/CDbConnection.php:388 /opt/lampp/htdocs/YiiRoot/framework/db/CDbConnection.php:331 /opt/lampp/htdocs/YiiRoot/framework/db/CDbConnection.php:309 /opt/lampp/htdocs/YiiRoot/framework/base/CModule.php:388 /opt/lampp/htdocs/YiiRoot/framework/base/CModule.php:104 /opt/lampp/htdocs/trackstar/protected/tests/unit/DbTest.php:6 FAILURES! Tests: 1, Assertions: 0, Errors: 1.

  Read the article

• Is it OK to have multiple asserts in a single unit test?

  - by Restuta

  I think that there are some cases when multiple assertions are needed (e.g. Guard Assertion), but in general I try to avoid this. What is your opinion? Please provide a real word examples when multiple asserts are really needed. Thanks! Edit In the comment to this great post Roy Osherove pointed to the OAPT project that is designed to run each assert in a single test. This is written on projects home page: Proper unit tests should fail for exactly one reason, that’s why you should be using one assert per unit test. And also Roy wrote in comments: My guideline is usually that you test one logical CONCEPT per test. you can have multiple asserts on the same object. they will usually be the same concept being tested.

  Read the article

• How should I handle missing resources?

  - by concept3d

  Your game expects a certain asset to be loaded, but it isn't found. How should the situation be handled? For example: Texture* grassTexture = LoadTexture("Grass.png"); // returns NULL; texture not found Mesh* car = LoadMesh("Car.obj"); // returns NULL; 3D mesh not found It might have been accidentally deleted by the user, corrupted or misspelled while in development. Some potential responses: Assertions (ideally only during development) Exit the game gracefully Throw an exception and try to handle it. Which way is best?

  Read the article

• How do you handle unfound resources?

  - by concept3d

  For example your game expects a certain asset to be loaded what is the best way to handle it if the resource isn't found, for example: Texture* grassTexture = LoadTexture("Grass.png");// returns NULL as texture is not found. Mesh* car = LoadMesh("Car.obj");// returns NULL as 3d mesh is not found What if for some reason the resource wasn't found e.g. deleted by user, misspelling while in development ? Should I use Assertions (which is only useful while in development? Exit the game gracefully ? or even thrown an exception and try to handle it? On a separate question, if I used a handle system instead of pointers (which I am already working on) I don't see how this would help me recover from unfound resources, Does a handle system help in situations like this?

  Read the article

• Testing what is happening inside your BizTalk solution

  - by Michael Stephenson

  As BizTalk developers we all know that one of the common challenges is how to test your BizTalk solution once it is deployed to BizTalk. Hopefully most of us are using the BizUnit framework for testing, but we still have the limitation that it's a very Black Box test. I have put together a sample and video to show a technique where I'm using the Logging Framework from the BizTalk CAT Team at Microsoft and where by BizUnit test is able to make assertions against the instrumentation going through the framework. This means that I can test for things happening such as the fact a component was executed or which branch of an orchestration was executed by simply using my normal instrumented code. I've put the sample and video for this on the following codeplex site: http://btsloggingeventsinbi.codeplex.com/ The video should also be on cloud casts fairly soon too.

  Read the article

• Programming Interview : How to debug a program?

  - by Jake

  I was recently asked the following question in an interview : How do you debug a C++ program ? I started by explaining that programs may have syntax and semantic errors. Compiler reports the syntax errors which can be corrected. For semantic errors, various debuggers are available. I specifically talked about gdb, which is command line, and Visual Studio IDE's debugger, which has a GUI, and common commands. I also talked about debug and release version of code, how assertions should be used for debug build, how exceptions helps in automatic cleanup & putting the program in valid state, and how logging can be useful (e.g. using std::clog). I want to know if this answer is complete or not. Also, I want to hear how other people will go about answering this question in a structured manner ? Thanks.

  Read the article

• If you should only have one assertion per test; how to test multiple inputs?

  - by speg

  I'm trying to build up some test cases, and have read that you should try and limit the number of assertions per test case. So my question is, what is the best way to go about testing a function w/ multiple inputs. For example, I have a function that parses a string from the user and returns the number of minutes. The string can be in the form "5w6h2d1m", where w, h, d, m correspond to the number of weeks, hours, days, and minutes. If I wanted to follow the '1 assertion per test rule' I'd have to make multiple tests for each variation of input? That seems silly so instead I just have something like: self.assertEqual(parse_date('5m'), 5) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5h'), 300) self.assertEqual(parse_date('5d') ,7200) self.assertEqual(parse_date('1d4h20m'), 1700) In the one test case. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• update(100) behaves slightly different than 10 times update(10) - is that a problem? [on hold]

  - by futlib

  While looking into some test failures, I've identified an curious issue with my update logic. This: game.update(100); Behaves slightly different from: for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) game.update(10); The concrete example here is a rotating entity. It rotates by exactly 360 degrees in the first case, but only by about 352 in the second. This leads to slight variations in how things move, depending on the frame rate. Not enough to be noticeable in practice, but I did notice it when writing tests. Now my question is: Should this be fully deterministic, i.e. the outcome of update(1) * n should equal update(n) exactly? Or is it normal to have some variance and I should make my test assertions more generous?

  Read the article

• Internet Explorer Console

  - by bobthabuilda

  Is there a console logger for IE? I'm trying to log a bunch of tests/assertions to the console but I can't do this in IE.

  Read the article

• Axis2 and OpenSAML

  - by Tom Kiley

  I'm trying to add SAML assertions to a SOAP web service that is built on the axis2 engine. I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around how the two would interact. Could someone help point me in the right direction to add a SAML assertion to a response message from Axis2? Thanks, Tom

  Read the article

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of Go programming language?

  - by Manuel

  Not so long ago Google came out with this new programming language, which was said to be fast as C and intuitive and simple as python. I will not judge this assertions, but instead ask you: What do you think are Go's advantages and disadvantages? Can you tell us about a real use you have given to this programming language? Thanks! Manuel

  Read the article

• Can I ensure all tests contain an assertion in test/unit?

  - by Andrew Grimm

  With test/unit, and minitest, is it possible to fail any test that doesn't contain an assertion, or would monkey-patching be required (for example, checking if the assertion count increased after each test was executed)? Background: I shouldn't write unit tests without assertions - at a minimum, I should use assert_nothing_raised if I'm smoke testing to indicate that I'm smoke testing. Usually I write tests that fail first, but I'm writing some regression tests. Alternatively, I could supply an incorrect expected value to see if the test is comparing the expected and actual value.

  Read the article

• Is assert evil?

  - by dehmann

  The Go language creators write: Go doesn't provide assertions. (...) Programmers use them as a crutch to avoid thinking about proper error handling and reporting. What is your opinion about this?

  Read the article

• Remove leading whitespaces using variable length lookbehind in RegExp

  - by Shizhidi

  Hello, I'm wondering if variable length lookbehind assertions are supported in JavaScript's RegExp engine? For example, I'm trying to match the string "variable length" in the string "[a lot of whitespaces and/or tabs]variable length lookbehind", and I have something like this but it does not go well in various RegExp testers: ^(?<=[ \t]+).+(?= lookbehind) If it's an illegal pattern, what would be a good workaround to it? Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >