Search Results

Search found 96916 results on 3877 pages for 'code model'.

Page 353/3877 | < Previous Page | 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360  | Next Page >

  • Jenkins shell command isn't executing

    - by Dmitro
    In Jenkins project I add command for executiong rm /var/www/ru.liveyurist.ru/tmp/* But when I build project I get error: Started by user anonymous Building in workspace /var/www/ru.myproject.ru Updating https://subversion.assembla.com/svn/myproject/trunk At revision 1168 no change for https://subversion.assembla.com/svn/liveexpert/trunk since the previous build [ru.myproject.ru] $ /bin/sh -xe /tmp/hudson7189633355149866134.sh FATAL: command execution failed java.io.IOException: Cannot run program "/bin/sh" (in directory "/var/www/ru.myproject.ru"): java.io.IOException: error=12, Cannot allocate memory at java.lang.ProcessBuilder.start(ProcessBuilder.java:475) at hudson.Proc$LocalProc.<init>(Proc.java:244) at hudson.Proc$LocalProc.<init>(Proc.java:216) at hudson.Launcher$LocalLauncher.launch(Launcher.java:709) at hudson.Launcher$ProcStarter.start(Launcher.java:338) at hudson.Launcher$ProcStarter.join(Launcher.java:345) at hudson.tasks.CommandInterpreter.perform(CommandInterpreter.java:82) at hudson.tasks.CommandInterpreter.perform(CommandInterpreter.java:58) at hudson.tasks.BuildStepMonitor$1.perform(BuildStepMonitor.java:19) at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.perform(AbstractBuild.java:703) at hudson.model.Build$RunnerImpl.build(Build.java:178) at hudson.model.Build$RunnerImpl.doRun(Build.java:139) at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.run(AbstractBuild.java:473) at hudson.model.Run.run(Run.java:1410) at hudson.model.FreeStyleBuild.run(FreeStyleBuild.java:46) at hudson.model.ResourceController.execute(ResourceController.java:88) at hudson.model.Executor.run(Executor.java:238) Caused by: java.io.IOException: java.io.IOException: error=12, Cannot allocate memory at java.lang.UNIXProcess.<init>(UNIXProcess.java:164) at java.lang.ProcessImpl.start(ProcessImpl.java:81) at java.lang.ProcessBuilder.start(ProcessBuilder.java:468) ... 16 more Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failure Finished: FAILURE I started Jenkins from root user. Please advise what can be reason of this error?

    Read the article

  • My Unicomp Model M is double-striking on a key. What to do?

    - by Alex
    I realize this isn't strictly a computer-related question, but I figured that if there's any place to go for help about a broken keyboard, it would be a power users' forum. The O key on my Unicomp Model M has the tendency to strike twice. In other words, I press the key once, and it sends out two letters. There is probably a mechanical solution to this, but I'm not familiar enough with how these things work to come up with a fix myself. Has anyone had this problem?

    Read the article

  • What makes a laptop battery specific to a model?

    - by ryeguy
    I have an old Toshiba laptop (pentium 4) whose battery just crapped out. Looking at the battery, it says it's a PA3251U. Looking online, this thing is going for about $100! I don't want to spend probably 50% of this machine's value on a battery replacement! My question is: what makes a laptop battery specific to a model? Do I really only have this one battery to choose from, or can I look for any battery that matches some certain attributes (like number of cells, voltage, etc)?

    Read the article

  • A way of doing real-world test-driven development (and some thoughts about it)

    - by Thomas Weller
    Lately, I exchanged some arguments with Derick Bailey about some details of the red-green-refactor cycle of the Test-driven development process. In short, the issue revolved around the fact that it’s not enough to have a test red or green, but it’s also important to have it red or green for the right reasons. While for me, it’s sufficient to initially have a NotImplementedException in place, Derick argues that this is not totally correct (see these two posts: Red/Green/Refactor, For The Right Reasons and Red For The Right Reason: Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else). And he’s right. But on the other hand, I had no idea how his insights could have any practical consequence for my own individual interpretation of the red-green-refactor cycle (which is not really red-green-refactor, at least not in its pure sense, see the rest of this article). This made me think deeply for some days now. In the end I found out that the ‘right reason’ changes in my understanding depending on what development phase I’m in. To make this clear (at least I hope it becomes clear…) I started to describe my way of working in some detail, and then something strange happened: The scope of the article slightly shifted from focusing ‘only’ on the ‘right reason’ issue to something more general, which you might describe as something like  'Doing real-world TDD in .NET , with massive use of third-party add-ins’. This is because I feel that there is a more general statement about Test-driven development to make:  It’s high time to speak about the ‘How’ of TDD, not always only the ‘Why’. Much has been said about this, and me myself also contributed to that (see here: TDD is not about testing, it's about how we develop software). But always justifying what you do is very unsatisfying in the long run, it is inherently defensive, and it costs time and effort that could be used for better and more important things. And frankly: I’m somewhat sick and tired of repeating time and again that the test-driven way of software development is highly preferable for many reasons - I don’t want to spent my time exclusively on stating the obvious… So, again, let’s say it clearly: TDD is programming, and programming is TDD. Other ways of programming (code-first, sometimes called cowboy-coding) are exceptional and need justification. – I know that there are many people out there who will disagree with this radical statement, and I also know that it’s not a description of the real world but more of a mission statement or something. But nevertheless I’m absolutely sure that in some years this statement will be nothing but a platitude. Side note: Some parts of this post read as if I were paid by Jetbrains (the manufacturer of the ReSharper add-in – R#), but I swear I’m not. Rather I think that Visual Studio is just not production-complete without it, and I wouldn’t even consider to do professional work without having this add-in installed... The three parts of a software component Before I go into some details, I first should describe my understanding of what belongs to a software component (assembly, type, or method) during the production process (i.e. the coding phase). Roughly, I come up with the three parts shown below:   First, we need to have some initial sort of requirement. This can be a multi-page formal document, a vague idea in some programmer’s brain of what might be needed, or anything in between. In either way, there has to be some sort of requirement, be it explicit or not. – At the C# micro-level, the best way that I found to formulate that is to define interfaces for just about everything, even for internal classes, and to provide them with exhaustive xml comments. The next step then is to re-formulate these requirements in an executable form. This is specific to the respective programming language. - For C#/.NET, the Gallio framework (which includes MbUnit) in conjunction with the ReSharper add-in for Visual Studio is my toolset of choice. The third part then finally is the production code itself. It’s development is entirely driven by the requirements and their executable formulation. This is the delivery, the two other parts are ‘only’ there to make its production possible, to give it a decent quality and reliability, and to significantly reduce related costs down the maintenance timeline. So while the first two parts are not really relevant for the customer, they are very important for the developer. The customer (or in Scrum terms: the Product Owner) is not interested at all in how  the product is developed, he is only interested in the fact that it is developed as cost-effective as possible, and that it meets his functional and non-functional requirements. The rest is solely a matter of the developer’s craftsmanship, and this is what I want to talk about during the remainder of this article… An example To demonstrate my way of doing real-world TDD, I decided to show the development of a (very) simple Calculator component. The example is deliberately trivial and silly, as examples always are. I am totally aware of the fact that real life is never that simple, but I only want to show some development principles here… The requirement As already said above, I start with writing down some words on the initial requirement, and I normally use interfaces for that, even for internal classes - the typical question “intf or not” doesn’t even come to mind. I need them for my usual workflow and using them automatically produces high componentized and testable code anyway. To think about their usage in every single situation would slow down the production process unnecessarily. So this is what I begin with: namespace Calculator {     /// <summary>     /// Defines a very simple calculator component for demo purposes.     /// </summary>     public interface ICalculator     {         /// <summary>         /// Gets the result of the last successful operation.         /// </summary>         /// <value>The last result.</value>         /// <remarks>         /// Will be <see langword="null" /> before the first successful operation.         /// </remarks>         double? LastResult { get; }       } // interface ICalculator   } // namespace Calculator So, I’m not beginning with a test, but with a sort of code declaration - and still I insist on being 100% test-driven. There are three important things here: Starting this way gives me a method signature, which allows to use IntelliSense and AutoCompletion and thus eliminates the danger of typos - one of the most regular, annoying, time-consuming, and therefore expensive sources of error in the development process. In my understanding, the interface definition as a whole is more of a readable requirement document and technical documentation than anything else. So this is at least as much about documentation than about coding. The documentation must completely describe the behavior of the documented element. I normally use an IoC container or some sort of self-written provider-like model in my architecture. In either case, I need my components defined via service interfaces anyway. - I will use the LinFu IoC framework here, for no other reason as that is is very simple to use. The ‘Red’ (pt. 1)   First I create a folder for the project’s third-party libraries and put the LinFu.Core dll there. Then I set up a test project (via a Gallio project template), and add references to the Calculator project and the LinFu dll. Finally I’m ready to write the first test, which will look like the following: namespace Calculator.Test {     [TestFixture]     public class CalculatorTest     {         private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();           [Test]         public void CalculatorLastResultIsInitiallyNull()         {             ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();               Assert.IsNull(calculator.LastResult);         }       } // class CalculatorTest   } // namespace Calculator.Test       This is basically the executable formulation of what the interface definition states (part of). Side note: There’s one principle of TDD that is just plain wrong in my eyes: I’m talking about the Red is 'does not compile' thing. How could a compiler error ever be interpreted as a valid test outcome? I never understood that, it just makes no sense to me. (Or, in Derick’s terms: this reason is as wrong as a reason ever could be…) A compiler error tells me: Your code is incorrect, but nothing more.  Instead, the ‘Red’ part of the red-green-refactor cycle has a clearly defined meaning to me: It means that the test works as intended and fails only if its assumptions are not met for some reason. Back to our Calculator. When I execute the above test with R#, the Gallio plugin will give me this output: So this tells me that the test is red for the wrong reason: There’s no implementation that the IoC-container could load, of course. So let’s fix that. With R#, this is very easy: First, create an ICalculator - derived type:        Next, implement the interface members: And finally, move the new class to its own file: So far my ‘work’ was six mouse clicks long, the only thing that’s left to do manually here, is to add the Ioc-specific wiring-declaration and also to make the respective class non-public, which I regularly do to force my components to communicate exclusively via interfaces: This is what my Calculator class looks like as of now: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult         {             get             {                 throw new NotImplementedException();             }         }     } } Back to the test fixture, we have to put our IoC container to work: [TestFixture] public class CalculatorTest {     #region Fields       private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();       #endregion // Fields       #region Setup/TearDown       [FixtureSetUp]     public void FixtureSetUp()     {        container.LoadFrom(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "Calculator.dll");     }       ... Because I have a R# live template defined for the setup/teardown method skeleton as well, the only manual coding here again is the IoC-specific stuff: two lines, not more… The ‘Red’ (pt. 2) Now, the execution of the above test gives the following result: This time, the test outcome tells me that the method under test is called. And this is the point, where Derick and I seem to have somewhat different views on the subject: Of course, the test still is worthless regarding the red/green outcome (or: it’s still red for the wrong reasons, in that it gives a false negative). But as far as I am concerned, I’m not really interested in the test outcome at this point of the red-green-refactor cycle. Rather, I only want to assert that my test actually calls the right method. If that’s the case, I will happily go on to the ‘Green’ part… The ‘Green’ Making the test green is quite trivial. Just make LastResult an automatic property:     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult { get; private set; }     }         One more round… Now on to something slightly more demanding (cough…). Let’s state that our Calculator exposes an Add() method:         ...   /// <summary>         /// Adds the specified operands.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param>         /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param>         /// <returns>The result of the additon.</returns>         /// <exception cref="ArgumentException">         /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/>         /// -- or --<br/>         /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0.         /// </exception>         double Add(double operand1, double operand2);       } // interface ICalculator A remark: I sometimes hear the complaint that xml comment stuff like the above is hard to read. That’s certainly true, but irrelevant to me, because I read xml code comments with the CR_Documentor tool window. And using that, it looks like this:   Apart from that, I’m heavily using xml code comments (see e.g. here for a detailed guide) because there is the possibility of automating help generation with nightly CI builds (using MS Sandcastle and the Sandcastle Help File Builder), and then publishing the results to some intranet location.  This way, a team always has first class, up-to-date technical documentation at hand about the current codebase. (And, also very important for speeding up things and avoiding typos: You have IntelliSense/AutoCompletion and R# support, and the comments are subject to compiler checking…).     Back to our Calculator again: Two more R# – clicks implement the Add() skeleton:         ...           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             throw new NotImplementedException();         }       } // class Calculator As we have stated in the interface definition (which actually serves as our requirement document!), the operands are not allowed to be negative. So let’s start implementing that. Here’s the test: [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); } As you can see, I’m using a data-driven unit test method here, mainly for these two reasons: Because I know that I will have to do the same test for the second operand in a few seconds, I save myself from implementing another test method for this purpose. Rather, I only will have to add another Row attribute to the existing one. From the test report below, you can see that the argument values are explicitly printed out. This can be a valuable documentation feature even when everything is green: One can quickly review what values were tested exactly - the complete Gallio HTML-report (as it will be produced by the Continuous Integration runs) shows these values in a quite clear format (see below for an example). Back to our Calculator development again, this is what the test result tells us at the moment: So we’re red again, because there is not yet an implementation… Next we go on and implement the necessary parameter verification to become green again, and then we do the same thing for the second operand. To make a long story short, here’s the test and the method implementation at the end of the second cycle: // in CalculatorTest:   [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] [Row(295, -123)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); }   // in Calculator: public double Add(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }     if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }     throw new NotImplementedException(); } So far, we have sheltered our method from unwanted input, and now we can safely operate on the parameters without further caring about their validity (this is my interpretation of the Fail Fast principle, which is regarded here in more detail). Now we can think about the method’s successful outcomes. First let’s write another test for that: [Test] [Row(1, 1, 2)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } Again, I’m regularly using row based test methods for these kinds of unit tests. The above shown pattern proved to be extremely helpful for my development work, I call it the Defined-Input/Expected-Output test idiom: You define your input arguments together with the expected method result. There are two major benefits from that way of testing: In the course of refining a method, it’s very likely to come up with additional test cases. In our case, we might add tests for some edge cases like ‘one of the operands is zero’ or ‘the sum of the two operands causes an overflow’, or maybe there’s an external test protocol that has to be fulfilled (e.g. an ISO norm for medical software), and this results in the need of testing against additional values. In all these scenarios we only have to add another Row attribute to the test. Remember that the argument values are written to the test report, so as a side-effect this produces valuable documentation. (This can become especially important if the fulfillment of some sort of external requirements has to be proven). So your test method might look something like that in the end: [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 2)] [Row(0, 999999999, 999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, double.MaxValue)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } And this will produce the following HTML report (with Gallio):   Not bad for the amount of work we invested in it, huh? - There might be scenarios where reports like that can be useful for demonstration purposes during a Scrum sprint review… The last requirement to fulfill is that the LastResult property is expected to store the result of the last operation. I don’t show this here, it’s trivial enough and brings nothing new… And finally: Refactor (for the right reasons) To demonstrate my way of going through the refactoring portion of the red-green-refactor cycle, I added another method to our Calculator component, namely Subtract(). Here’s the code (tests and production): // CalculatorTest.cs:   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtract(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); }   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtractGivesExpectedLastResult(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, calculator.LastResult); }   ...   // ICalculator.cs: /// <summary> /// Subtracts the specified operands. /// </summary> /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param> /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param> /// <returns>The result of the subtraction.</returns> /// <exception cref="ArgumentException"> /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/> /// -- or --<br/> /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0. /// </exception> double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2);   ...   // Calculator.cs:   public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }       if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }       return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value; }   Obviously, the argument validation stuff that was produced during the red-green part of our cycle duplicates the code from the previous Add() method. So, to avoid code duplication and minimize the number of code lines of the production code, we do an Extract Method refactoring. One more time, this is only a matter of a few mouse clicks (and giving the new method a name) with R#: Having done that, our production code finally looks like that: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         #region ICalculator           public double? LastResult { get; private set; }           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 + operand2).Value;         }           public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value;         }           #endregion // ICalculator           #region Implementation (Helper)           private static void ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(double operand1, double operand2)         {             if (operand1 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");             }               if (operand2 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");             }         }           #endregion // Implementation (Helper)       } // class Calculator   } // namespace Calculator But is the above worth the effort at all? It’s obviously trivial and not very impressive. All our tests were green (for the right reasons), and refactoring the code did not change anything. It’s not immediately clear how this refactoring work adds value to the project. Derick puts it like this: STOP! Hold on a second… before you go any further and before you even think about refactoring what you just wrote to make your test pass, you need to understand something: if your done with your requirements after making the test green, you are not required to refactor the code. I know… I’m speaking heresy, here. Toss me to the wolves, I’ve gone over to the dark side! Seriously, though… if your test is passing for the right reasons, and you do not need to write any test or any more code for you class at this point, what value does refactoring add? Derick immediately answers his own question: So why should you follow the refactor portion of red/green/refactor? When you have added code that makes the system less readable, less understandable, less expressive of the domain or concern’s intentions, less architecturally sound, less DRY, etc, then you should refactor it. I couldn’t state it more precise. From my personal perspective, I’d add the following: You have to keep in mind that real-world software systems are usually quite large and there are dozens or even hundreds of occasions where micro-refactorings like the above can be applied. It’s the sum of them all that counts. And to have a good overall quality of the system (e.g. in terms of the Code Duplication Percentage metric) you have to be pedantic on the individual, seemingly trivial cases. My job regularly requires the reading and understanding of ‘foreign’ code. So code quality/readability really makes a HUGE difference for me – sometimes it can be even the difference between project success and failure… Conclusions The above described development process emerged over the years, and there were mainly two things that guided its evolution (you might call it eternal principles, personal beliefs, or anything in between): Test-driven development is the normal, natural way of writing software, code-first is exceptional. So ‘doing TDD or not’ is not a question. And good, stable code can only reliably be produced by doing TDD (yes, I know: many will strongly disagree here again, but I’ve never seen high-quality code – and high-quality code is code that stood the test of time and causes low maintenance costs – that was produced code-first…) It’s the production code that pays our bills in the end. (Though I have seen customers these days who demand an acceptance test battery as part of the final delivery. Things seem to go into the right direction…). The test code serves ‘only’ to make the production code work. But it’s the number of delivered features which solely counts at the end of the day - no matter how much test code you wrote or how good it is. With these two things in mind, I tried to optimize my coding process for coding speed – or, in business terms: productivity - without sacrificing the principles of TDD (more than I’d do either way…).  As a result, I consider a ratio of about 3-5/1 for test code vs. production code as normal and desirable. In other words: roughly 60-80% of my code is test code (This might sound heavy, but that is mainly due to the fact that software development standards only begin to evolve. The entire software development profession is very young, historically seen; only at the very beginning, and there are no viable standards yet. If you think about software development as a kind of casting process, where the test code is the mold and the resulting production code is the final product, then the above ratio sounds no longer extraordinary…) Although the above might look like very much unnecessary work at first sight, it’s not. With the aid of the mentioned add-ins, doing all the above is a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds (while writing this post took hours and days…). The most important thing is to have the right tools at hand. Slow developer machines or the lack of a tool or something like that - for ‘saving’ a few 100 bucks -  is just not acceptable and a very bad decision in business terms (though I quite some times have seen and heard that…). Production of high-quality products needs the usage of high-quality tools. This is a platitude that every craftsman knows… The here described round-trip will take me about five to ten minutes in my real-world development practice. I guess it’s about 30% more time compared to developing the ‘traditional’ (code-first) way. But the so manufactured ‘product’ is of much higher quality and massively reduces maintenance costs, which is by far the single biggest cost factor, as I showed in this previous post: It's the maintenance, stupid! (or: Something is rotten in developerland.). In the end, this is a highly cost-effective way of software development… But on the other hand, there clearly is a trade-off here: coding speed vs. code quality/later maintenance costs. The here described development method might be a perfect fit for the overwhelming majority of software projects, but there certainly are some scenarios where it’s not - e.g. if time-to-market is crucial for a software project. So this is a business decision in the end. It’s just that you have to know what you’re doing and what consequences this might have… Some last words First, I’d like to thank Derick Bailey again. His two aforementioned posts (which I strongly recommend for reading) inspired me to think deeply about my own personal way of doing TDD and to clarify my thoughts about it. I wouldn’t have done that without this inspiration. I really enjoy that kind of discussions… I agree with him in all respects. But I don’t know (yet?) how to bring his insights into the described production process without slowing things down. The above described method proved to be very “good enough” in my practical experience. But of course, I’m open to suggestions here… My rationale for now is: If the test is initially red during the red-green-refactor cycle, the ‘right reason’ is: it actually calls the right method, but this method is not yet operational. Later on, when the cycle is finished and the tests become part of the regular, automated Continuous Integration process, ‘red’ certainly must occur for the ‘right reason’: in this phase, ‘red’ MUST mean nothing but an unfulfilled assertion - Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else!

    Read the article

  • Custom ViewModel with MVC 2 Strongly Typed HTML Helpers return null object on Create ?

    - by Barbaros Alp
    Hi, I am having a trouble while trying to create an entity with a custom view modeled create form. Below is my custom view model for Category Creation form. public class CategoryFormViewModel { public CategoryFormViewModel(Category category, string actionTitle) { Category = category; ActionTitle = actionTitle; } public Category Category { get; private set; } public string ActionTitle { get; private set; } } and this is my user control where the UI is <%@ Control Language="C#" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<CategoryFormViewModel>" %> <h2> <span><%= Html.Encode(Model.ActionTitle) %></span> </h2> <%=Html.ValidationSummary() %> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <p> <span class="bold block">Baslik:</span> <%=Html.TextBoxFor(model => Model.Category.Title, new { @class = "width80 txt-base" })%> </p> <p> <span class="bold block">Sira Numarasi:</span> <%=Html.TextBoxFor(model => Model.Category.OrderNo, new { @class = "width10 txt-base" })%> </p> <p> <input type="submit" class="btn-admin cursorPointer" value="Save" /> </p> <% } %> When i click on save button, it doesnt bind the category for me because of i am using custom view model and strongly typed html helpers like that <%=Html.TextBoxFor(model => Model.Category.OrderNo) %> How can i fix this ? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • sencha dataitem datamap setItems

    - by user1795667
    I'm trying to follow the kitten example given here http://www.sencha.com/blog/dive-into-dataview-with-sencha-touch-2-beta-2#comment_form and I have complex components in which one of the property of my data is a list of objects. And I do find a method for setting a list of objects which is setItems however it does not seem to work. My object array is my model MyApp.Model.Sponsor. Could anyone suggest what I'm missing to get this working? Ext.define('MyListItem', { extend: 'Ext.dataview.component.DataItem', requires: ['Ext.Button','Ext.Img', 'MyApp.model.Sponsors', 'MyApp.model.Sponsor'], xtype: 'mylistitem', config: { sponsor: true, dataMap: { getSponsor: { setItems: 'sponsor' } } }, applySponsor: function(config) { // I put an alert here to see if I get getSponsor() but the object I get here is undefined alert(this.getSponsor()); return Ext.factory(config, MyApp.model.Sponsor, this.getSponsor()); }, updateSponsor: function(newNameButton, oldNameButton) { if (oldNameButton) { this.remove(oldNameButton); } if (newNameButton) { this.add(newNameButton); } }, onSponsorTap: function(button, e) { var sponsors = record.get('sponsor'); //my specific action } }); Ext.define('MyApp.model.Sponsors', { extend: 'Ext.data.Model', xtype:'Sponsors_m', config: { fields: [ {name: 'level', type: 'auto'}, {name: 'id', type: 'int'}, {name: 'sponsor', type: 'Sponsor'} ] } }); Ext.define('MyApp.model.Sponsor', { extend: 'Ext.data.Model', xtype:'Sponsor_m', config: { fields: [ {name: 'name', type: 'auto'}, {name: 'image', type: 'auto'}, {name: 'url', type: 'auto'}, {name: 'description', type: 'auto'} ] } });

    Read the article

  • Create inherited class from base class

    - by Raj
    public class Car { private string make; private string model; public Car(string make, string model) { this.make = make; this.model = model; } public virtual void Display() { Console.WriteLine("Make: {0}", make); Console.WriteLine("Model: {0}", model); } public string Make { get{return make;} set{make = value;} } public string Model { get{return model;} set{model = value;} } } public class SuperCar:Car { private Car car; private int horsePower; public SuperCar(Car car) { this.car = car; } public int HorsePower { get{return horsePower;} set{horsepower = value;} } public override void Display() { base.Display(); Console.WriteLine("I am a super car"); } When I do something like Car myCar = new Car("Porsche", "911"); SuperCar mySupcar = new SuperCar(myCar); mySupcar.Display(); I only get "I am a supercar" but not the properties of my base class. Should I explicitly assign the properties of my base class in the SuperCar constructor? In fact I'm trying Decorator pattern where I want a class to add behaviour to a base class.

    Read the article

  • "Illegal characters in path." Visual Studio WinForm Design View

    - by jacksonakj
    I am putting together a lightweight MVP pattern for a WinForms project. Everything compiles and runs fine. However when I attempt to open the WinForm in design mode in Visual Studio I get a "Illegal characters in path" error. My WinForm is using generics and inheriting from a base Form class. Is there a problem with using generics in a WinForm? Here is the WinForm and base Form class. public partial class TapsForm : MvpForm<TapsPresenter, TapsFormModel>, ITapsView { public TapsForm() { InitializeComponent(); } public TapsForm(TapsPresenter presenter) :base(presenter) { InitializeComponent(); UpdateModel(); } public IList<Taps> Taps { set { gridTaps.DataSource = value; } } private void UpdateModel() { Model.RideId = Int32.Parse(cboRide.Text); Model.Latitude = Double.Parse(txtLatitude.Text); Model.Longitude = Double.Parse(txtLongitude.Text); } } Base form MvpForm: public class MvpForm<TPresenter, TModel> : Form, IView where TPresenter : class, IPresenter where TModel : class, new() { private readonly TPresenter presenter; private TModel model; public MvpForm() { } public MvpForm(TPresenter presenter) { this.presenter = presenter; this.presenter.RegisterView(this); } protected override void OnLoad(EventArgs e) { base.OnLoad(e); if (presenter != null) presenter.IntializeView(); } public TModel Model { get { if (model == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("The Model property is currently null, however it should have been automatically initialized by the presenter. This most likely indicates that no presenter was bound to the control. Check your presenter bindings."); return model; } set { model = value;} } }

    Read the article

  • Usage of putty in command line from Hudson

    - by kij
    Hi, I'm trying to use putty in command line from an hudson job. The command is the following one: putty -ssh -2 -P 22 USERNAME@SERVER_ADDR -pw PASS -m command.txt Where 'command.txt' is a shell script to execute in the server through SSH. If i launch this command from the Window command prompt, it works, the shell script is executed on the server machine. If i launch a build of the hudson job configured with this batch command, it doesn't work. The build is running... and running... and running.. without doing anything, and i have to stop it manually. So my question is: Is it possible to launch an external programm (i.e. putty) from an hudson job ? ps: i tried SSH plugin but... not a really good plugin (pre/post build, fail status of the commands launched not caught by hudson, etc.) Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards. kij EDIT: These are the build logs: [workspace] $ cmd /c call C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\hudson7429256014041663539.bat C:\Hudson\jobs\Artifact deployer\workspace>putty -ssh -2 -P 22 USER@SERV_ADD -pw PASS -m com.txt Le build a été annulé Finished: ABORTED And the Hudson.err.log file at the same time (after a stop): 3 juin 2010 18:27:28 hudson.model.Run run INFO: Artifact deployer #6 aborted java.lang.InterruptedException at java.lang.ProcessImpl.waitFor(Native Method) at hudson.Proc$LocalProc.join(Proc.java:179) at hudson.Launcher$ProcStarter.join(Launcher.java:278) at hudson.tasks.CommandInterpreter.perform(CommandInterpreter.java:83) at hudson.tasks.CommandInterpreter.perform(CommandInterpreter.java:58) at hudson.tasks.BuildStepMonitor$1.perform(BuildStepMonitor.java:19) at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.perform(AbstractBuild.java:601) at hudson.model.Build$RunnerImpl.build(Build.java:174) at hudson.model.Build$RunnerImpl.doRun(Build.java:138) at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.run(AbstractBuild.java:416) at hudson.model.Run.run(Run.java:1241) at hudson.model.FreeStyleBuild.run(FreeStyleBuild.java:46) at hudson.model.ResourceController.execute(ResourceController.java:88) at hudson.model.Executor.run(Executor.java:124) My shell script only write "hello" in a "hello.txt" file on the server, and nothing is done.

    Read the article

  • LaTeX printing only first two pages of a document

    - by Peter Flom
    I am working in LaTeX, and when I create a pdf file (using LaTeX button or pdfLaTeX button or using yap) the pdf has only the first two pages. No errors. It just stops. If I make the first page longer by adding text, it still stops at end of 2nd page. Any ideas? OK, responding to first comment, here is the code \documentclass{article} \title{Outline of Book} \author{Peter L. Flom} \begin{document} \maketitle \section*{Preface} \subsection*{Audience} \subsection*{What makes this book different?} \subsection*{Necessary background} \subsection*{How to read this book} \section{Introduction} \subsection{The purpose of logistic regression} \subsection{The need for logistic regression} \subsection{Types of logistic regression} \section{General issues in logistic regression} \subsection{Transforming independent and dependent variables} \subsection{Interactions} \subsection{Model selection} \subsection{Parameter estimates, confidence intervals, p values} \subsection{Summary and further reading} \section{Dichotomous logistic regression} \subsection{Introduction, theory, examples} \subsection{Exploratory plots and analysis} \subsection{Basic model fitting} \subsection{Advanced and special issues in model fitting} \subsection{Diagnostic and descriptive plots and analysis} \subsection{Traps and gotchas} \subsection{Power analysis} \subsection{Summary and further reading} \subsection{Exercises} \section{Ordinal logistic regression} \subsection{Introduction, theory, examples} \subsubsection{Introduction - what are ordinal variables?} \subsubsection{Theory of the model} \subsubsection{Examples for this chapter} \subsection{Exploratory plots and analysis} \subsection{Basic model fitting} \subsection{Advanced and special issues in model fitting} \subsection{Diagnostic and descriptive plots and analysis} \subsection{Traps and gotchas} \subsection{Power analysis} \subsection{Summary and further reading} \subsection{Exercises} \section{Multinomial logistic regression} \subsection{Introduction, theory, examples} \subsection{Exploratory plots and analysis} \subsection{Basic model fitting} \subsection{Advanced and special issues in model fitting} \subsection{Diagnostic and descriptive plots and analysis} \subsection{Traps and gotchas} \subsection{Power analysis} \subsection{Summary and further reading} \subsection{Exercises} \section{Choosing a model} \subsection{NOIR and its problems} \subsection{Linear vs. ordinal} \subsection{Ordinal vs. multinomial} \subsection{Summary and further reading} \subsection{Exercises} \section{Extensions and related models} \subsection{Other logistic models} \subsection{Multilevel models - PROC NLMIXED and GLIMMIX} \subsection{Loglinear models - PROC CATMOD} \section{Summary} \end{document} thanks Peter

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: How to validate an Ajax form with a specified UpdateTargetID?

    - by Bryan Roth
    I'm trying to figure out how to show validation errors after a user submits an Ajax form that has its UpdateTargetID property set. I'm stumped on how to update the Ajax form with the validation errors without returning the Create PartialView into the results div. If the form is valid, then it should return the Records PartialView. Create.ascx <% Using Ajax.BeginForm("Create", "Record", New Record With {.UserID = Model.UserID}, New AjaxOptions With { .UpdateTargetId = "results", .LoadingElementId = "loader" })%> Date Located <%= Html.TextBoxFor(Function(model) model.DateLocated)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(Function(model) model.DateLocated) %> Description <%= Html.TextBoxFor(Function(model) model.Description)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(Function(model) model.Description) %> <input id="btnSave" type="submit" value="Create" /> <span id="loader" class="loader">Saving...</span> <%End Using%> Records.ascx <div id="results"> ... </div> RecordController.vb Function Create(ByVal newRecord As Record) As ActionResult ValidateRecord(newRecord) If Not ModelState.IsValid Then Return PartialView("Create", newRecord) End If _repository.Add(newRecord) _repository.Save() Dim user = _repository.GetUser(newRecord.UserID) Return PartialView("Records", user) End Function

    Read the article

  • Have I taken a wrong path in programming by being excessively worried about code elegance and style?

    - by Ygam
    I am in a major stump right now. I am a BSIT graduate, but I only started actual programming less than a year ago. I observed that I have the following attitude in programming: I tend to be more of a purist, scorning unelegant approaches to solving problems using code I tend to look at anything in a large scale, planning everything before I start coding, either in simple flowcharts or complex UML charts I have a really strong impulse on refactoring my code, even if I miss deadlines or prolong development times I am obsessed with good directory structures, file naming conventions, class, method, and variable naming conventions I tend to always want to study something new, even, as I said, at the cost of missing deadlines I tend to see software development as something to engineer, to architect; that is, seeing how things relate to each other and how blocks of code can interact (I am a huge fan of loose coupling) i.e the OOP thinking I tend to combine OOP and procedural coding whenever I see fit I want my code to execute fast (thus the elegant approaches and refactoring) This bothers me because I see my colleagues doing much better the other way around (aside from the fact that they started programming since our first year in college). By the other way around I mean, they fire up coding, gets the job done much faster because they don't have to really look at how clean their codes are or how elegant their algorithms are, they don't bother with OOP however big their projects are, they mostly use web APIs, piece them together and voila! Working code! CLients are happy, they get paid fast, at the expense of a really unmaintainable or hard-to-read code that lacks structure and conventions, or slow executions of certain actions (which the common reasoning against would be that internet connections are much faster these days, hardware is more powerful). The excuse I often receive is clients don't care about how you write the code, but they do care about how long you deliver it. If it works then all is good. Now, did my "purist" approach to programming may have been the wrong way to start programming? Should I just dump these purist concepts and just code the hell up because I have seen it: clients don't really care how beautifully coded it is?

    Read the article

  • Can I interrupt javascript code and then continue on a keystroke?

    - by Brian Ramsay
    I am porting an old game from C to Javascript. I have run into an issue with display code where I would like to have the main game code call display methods without having to worry about how those status messages are displayed. In the original code, if the message is too long, the program just waits for the player to toggle through the messages with the spacebar and then continues. This doesn't work in javascript, because while I wait for an event, all of the other program code continues. I had thought to use a callback so that further code can execute when the player hits the designated key, but I can't see how that will be viable with a lot of calls to display.update(msg) scattered throughout the code. Can I architect things differently so the event-based, asynchronous model works, or is there some other solution that would allow me to implement a more traditional event loop? Am I making sense? Example: // this is what the original code does, but obviously doesn't work in Javascript display = { update : function(msg) { // if msg is too long // wait for user input // ok, we've got input, continue } }; // this is more javascript-y... display = { update : function(msg, when_finished) { // show part of the message $(document).addEvent('keydown', function(e) { // display the rest of the message when_finished(); }); } }; // but makes for amazingly nasty game code do_something(param, function() { // in case do_something calls display I have to // provide a callback for everything afterwards // this happens next, but what if do_the_next_thing needs to call display? // I have to wait again do_the_next_thing(param, function() { // now I have to do this again, ad infinitum } }

    Read the article

  • Working with extra fields in an Inline form - save_model, save_formset, can't make sense of the diff

    - by magicrebirth
    Suppose I am in the usual situation where there're extra fields in the many2many relationship: class Person(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=128) class Group(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=128) members = models.ManyToManyField(Person, through='Membership') class Membership(models.Model): person = models.ForeignKey(Person) group = models.ForeignKey(Group) date_joined = models.DateField() invite_reason = models.CharField(max_length=64) # other models which are unrelated to the ones above.. class Trip(models.Model): placeVisited = models.ForeignKey(Place) visitor = models.ForeignKey(Person) pleasuretrip = models.Boolean() class Place(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=128) I want to add some extra fields in the Membership form that gets displayed through the Inline. These fields basically are a shortcut to the instantiation of another model (Trip). Trip can have its own admin views, but these shortcuts are needed because when my project partners are entering 'Membership' data in the system they happen to have also the 'Trip' information handy (and also because some of the info in Membership can just be copied over to Trip etc. etc.). So all I want to have is two extra fields in the Membership Inline - placeVisited and pleasuretrip - which together with the Person instance will let me instantiate the Trip model in the background... I found out I can easily add extra fields to the inline view by defining my own form. But once the data have been entered, how and when to reference to them in order to perform the save operations I need to do? class MyForm(forms.ModelForm): place = forms.ModelChoiceField(required=False, queryset=Place.objects.all(), label="place",) pleasuretrip = forms.BooleanField(required=False, label="...") class MembershipInline(admin.TabularInline): model = Membership form = MyForm def save_model(self, request, obj, form, change): place = form.place pleasuretrip = form.pleasuretrip person = form.person .... # now I can create Trip instances with those data .... obj.save() class GroupAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin): model = Group .... inlines = (MembershipInline,) This doesn't seem to work... I'm also a bit puzzled by the save_formset method... maybe is that the one I should be using? Many thanks in advance for the help!!!!

    Read the article

  • Passing null child object from parent object to a partial view

    - by Mike
    I have an object which contains models for my ASP.NET MVC web app. The Model that is being passed into the view has sub models for "gadgets" on that particular view. Each of these sub models gets passed to a partial view (gadget). The problem is when I have a null model in the view model. See example below. View Model: public class FooBarHolder() { public FooBar1 FooBar1 { get; set; } public FooBar2 FooBar2 { get; set; } } We pass FooBarHolder into the view and inside the view we make calls such as <% Html.RenderPartial("Foo", Model.FooBar1); %> <% Html.RenderPartial("Foo2", Model.FooBar2); %> Now say for instance that Model.FooBar2 was null. What I am experiencing from the strongly typed partial view is an error that says "This view expected a model of type FooBar2 but got a model of type FooBarHolder." Why is this happening instead of just passing in a null?

    Read the article

  • how to clear the dropdownlist values on button cick event? using jquery

    - by kumar
    <label for="ResolutionCode"> Resolution: <span> <%=Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.ResolutionCode, new SelectList(Model.LookupCodes["C_EXCPT_RESL"], "Key", "Value"))%> </span> </label> <label for="ReasonCode"> Reason: <span><%=Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.ReasonCode, new SelectList(Model.LookupCodes["C_EXCPT_RSN"], "Key", "Value"))%></span> </label> <label for="ActionCode"> Action Taken: <span><%=Html.DropDownListFor(model => model.ActionCode, new SelectList(Model.LookupCodes["C_EXCPT_ACT"], "Key", "Value"))%></span> </label> </div> <div class="fiveper"> <label for="FollowupDate"> Follow-up: <span class="datepicker-container"><input type="text" id="exc-flwup" name="FollowupDate" /></span> </label> <label for="IOL"> Inquiry #: <span><input type="text" id="Inquiry" name="IOL" /></span> </label> I am able to clear the Input box and textare on click event something like this $('#exc-flwup').val(''); how to clear the dropdownlist values? thanks

    Read the article

  • Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

    - by Bringer128
    I have always been skeptical of rewriting working code - porting code is no exception to this. However, with the advent of TDD and automated testing it is much more reasonable to rewrite and refactor code. Does anyone know if there is a TDD tool that can be used for porting old code? Ideally you could do the following: Write up language agnostic unit tests for the old code that pass (or fail if you find bugs!). Run unit tests on your other code base that fail. Write code in your new language that passes the tests without looking at the old code. The alternative would be to split step 1 into "Write up unit tests in language 1" and "Port unit tests to language 2", which significantly increases effort required and is difficult to justify if the old code base is going to stop being maintained after the port (that is, you don't get the benefit of continuous integration on this code base). EDIT: It's worth noting this question on StackOverflow.

    Read the article

  • Heads-Up! VeriSign Code Signing (Microsoft Authenticode) Certificates $99.00

    - by Edward Boyle
    Recently I posted an article about my Code Signing certificate from GoDaddy. I went with GoDaddy because it is an accepted certificate that should bring no problems; I would have preferred a VeriSign certificate but could not justify the extra $400.00 for the brand considering it truly was not required to meet my needs. I have been around since the day where VeriSign was really the only certificate (SSL) you could get unless you went with the then rogue South African company Thawte, since acquired by VeriSign. Today, I feel out of the loop – very out of the loop. I went to check into Windows Logo requirements, this leads me to this page, that then leads me to this page where I click on the “Digital Certificate’s” Link that leads to this page: So just a heads-up, $99.00 Code Signing Certificate from VeriSign!

    Read the article

  • Programming doesn&rsquo;t have to be Magic

    - by Wes McClure
    In the show LOST, the Swan Station had a button that “had to be pushed” every 100 minutes to avoid disaster.  Several characters in the show took it upon themselves to have faith and religiously push the button, resetting the clock and averting the unknown “disaster”.  There are striking similarities in this story to the code we write every day.  Here are some common ones that I encounter: “I don’t know what it does but the application doesn’t work without it” “I added that code because I saw it in other similar places, I didn’t understand it, but thought it was necessary.” (for consistency, or to make things “work”) “An error message recommended it” “I copied that code” (and didn’t look at what it was doing) “It was suggested in a forum online and it fixed my problem so I left it” In all of these cases we haven’t done our due diligence to understand what the code we are writing is actually doing.  In the rush to get things done it seems like we’re willing to push any button (add any line of code) just to get our desired result and move on.  All of the above explanations are common things we encounter, and are valid ways to work through a problem we have, but when we find a solution to a task we are working on (whether a bug or a feature), we should take a moment to reflect on what we don’t understand.  Remove what isn’t necessary, comprehend and simplify what is.  Why is it detrimental to commit code we don’t understand? Perpetuates unnecessary code If you copy code that isn’t necessary, someone else is more likely to do so, especially peers Perpetuates tech debt Adding unnecessary code leads to extra code that must be understood, maintained and eventually cleaned up in longer lived projects Tech debt begets tech debt as other developers copy or use this code as guidelines in similar situations Increases maintenance How do we know the code is simplified if we don’t understand it? Perpetuates a lack of ownership Makes it seem ok to commit anything so long as it “gets the job done” Perpetuates the notion that programming is magic If we don’t take the time to understand every line of code we add, then we are contributing to the notion that it is simply enough to make the code work, regardless of how. TLDR Don’t commit code that you don’t understand, take the time to understand it, simplify it and then commit it!

    Read the article

  • Workarounds for supporting MVVM in the Silverlight TreeView Control

    - by cibrax
    MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel) is the pattern that you will typically choose for building testable user interfaces either in WPF or Silverlight. This pattern basically relies on the data binding support in those two technologies for mapping an existing model class (the view model) to the different parts of the UI or view. Unfortunately, MVVM was not threated as first citizen for some of controls released out of the box in the Silverlight runtime or the Silverlight toolkit. That means that using data binding for implementing MVVM is not always something trivial and usually requires some customization in the existing controls. In ran into different problems myself trying to fully support data binding in controls like the tree view or the context menu or things like drag & drop.  For that reason, I decided to write this post to show how the tree view control or the tree view items can be customized to support data binding in many of its properties. In first place, you will typically use a tree view for showing hierarchical data so the view model somehow must reflect that hierarchy. An easy way to implement hierarchy in a model is to use a base item element like this one, public abstract class TreeItemModel { public abstract IEnumerable<TreeItemModel> Children; } You can later derive your concrete model classes from that base class. For example, public class CustomerModel { public string FullName { get; set; } public string Address { get; set; } public IEnumerable<OrderModel> Orders { get; set; } }   public class CustomerTreeItemModel : TreeItemModel { public CustomerTreeItemModel(CustomerModel customer) { }   public override IEnumerable<TreeItemModel> Children { get { // Return orders } } } The Children property in the CustomerTreeItem model implementation can return for instance an ObservableCollection<TreeItemModel> with the orders, so the tree view will automatically subscribe to all the changes in the collection. You can bind this model to the tree view control in the UI by using a Hierarchical data template. <e:TreeView x:Name="TreeView" ItemsSource="{Binding Customers}"> <e:TreeView.ItemTemplate> <sdk:HierarchicalDataTemplate ItemsSource="{Binding Children}"> <!-- TEMPLATE --> </sdk:HierarchicalDataTemplate> </e:TreeView.ItemTemplate> </e:TreeView> An interesting behavior with the Children property and the Hierarchical data template is that the Children property is only invoked before the expansion, so you can use lazy load at this point (The tree view control will not expand the whole tree in the first expansion). The problem with using MVVM in this control is that you can not bind properties in model with specific properties of the TreeView item such as IsSelected or IsExpanded. Here is where you need to customize the existing tree view control to support data binding in tree items. public class CustomTreeView : TreeView { public CustomTreeView() { }   protected override DependencyObject GetContainerForItemOverride() { CustomTreeViewItem tvi = new CustomTreeViewItem(); Binding expandedBinding = new Binding("IsExpanded"); expandedBinding.Mode = BindingMode.TwoWay; tvi.SetBinding(CustomTreeViewItem.IsExpandedProperty, expandedBinding); Binding selectedBinding = new Binding("IsSelected"); selectedBinding.Mode = BindingMode.TwoWay; tvi.SetBinding(CustomTreeViewItem.IsSelectedProperty, selectedBinding); return tvi; } }   public class CustomTreeViewItem : TreeViewItem { public CustomTreeViewItem() { }   protected override DependencyObject GetContainerForItemOverride() { CustomTreeViewItem tvi = new CustomTreeViewItem(); Binding expandedBinding = new Binding("IsExpanded"); expandedBinding.Mode = BindingMode.TwoWay; tvi.SetBinding(CustomTreeViewItem.IsExpandedProperty, expandedBinding); Binding selectedBinding = new Binding("IsSelected"); selectedBinding.Mode = BindingMode.TwoWay; tvi.SetBinding(CustomTreeViewItem.IsSelectedProperty, selectedBinding); return tvi; } } You basically need to derive the TreeView and TreeViewItem controls to manually add a binding for the properties you need. In the example above, I am adding a binding for the “IsExpanded” and “IsSelected” properties in the items. The model for the tree items now needs to be extended to support those properties as well, public abstract class TreeItemModel : INotifyPropertyChanged { bool isExpanded = false; bool isSelected = false;   public abstract IEnumerable<TreeItemModel> Children { get; }   public bool IsExpanded { get { return isExpanded; } set { isExpanded = value; if (PropertyChanged != null) PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs("IsExpanded")); } }   public bool IsSelected { get { return isSelected; } set { isSelected = value; if (PropertyChanged != null) PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs("IsSelected")); } }   public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged; } However, as soon as you use this custom tree view control, you lose all the automatic styles from the built-in toolkit themes because they are tied to the control type (TreeView in this case).  The only ugly workaround I found so far for this problem is to copy the styles from the Toolkit source code and reuse them in the application.

    Read the article

  • If my team has low skill, should I lower the skill of my code?

    - by Florian Margaine
    For example, there is a common snippet in JS to get a default value: function f(x) { x = x || 10; } This kind of snippet is not easily understood by all the members of my team, their JS level being low. Should I not use this trick then? It makes the code less readable by peers, but more readable than the following according to any JS dev: function f(x) { if (!x) { x = 10; } } Sure, if I use this trick and a colleague sees it, then they can learn something. But the case is often that they see this as "trying to be clever". So, should I lower the level of my code if my teammates have a lower level than me?

    Read the article

  • Fair Comments

    - by Tony Davis
    To what extent is good code self-documenting? In one of the most entertaining sessions I saw at the recent PASS summit, Jeremiah Peschka (blog | twitter) got a laugh out of a sleepy post-lunch audience with the following remark: "Some developers say good code is self-documenting; I say, get off my team" I silently applauded the sentiment. It's not that all comments are useful, but that I mistrust the basic premise that "my code is so clearly written, it doesn't need any comments". I've read many pieces describing the road to self-documenting code, and my problem with most of them is that they feed the myth that comments in code are a sign of weakness. They aren't; in fact, used correctly I'd say they are essential. Regardless of how far intelligent naming can get you in describing what the code does, or how well any accompanying unit tests can explain to your fellow developers why it works that way, it's no excuse not to document fully the public interfaces to your code. Maybe I just mixed with the wrong crowd while learning my favorite language, but when I open a stored procedure I lose the will even to read it unless I see a big Phil Factor- or Jeff Moden-style header summarizing in plain English what the code does, how it fits in to the broader application, and a usage example. This public interface describes the high-level process and should explain the role of the code, clearly, for fellow developers, language non-experts, and even any non-technical stake holders in the project. When you step into the body of the code, the low-level details, then I agree that the rules are somewhat different; especially when code is subject to frequent refactoring that can quickly render comments redundant or misleading. At their worst, here, inline comments are sticking plaster to cover up the scars caused by poor naming conventions, failure in clarity when mapping a complex domain into code, or just by not entirely understanding the problem (/ this is the clever part). If you design and refactor your code carefully so that it is as simple as possible, your functions do one thing only, you avoid having two completely different algorithms in the same piece of code, and your functions, classes and variables are intelligently named, then, yes, the need for inline comments should be minimal. And yet, even given this, I'd still argue that many languages (T-SQL certainly being one) just don't lend themselves to readability when performing even moderately-complex tasks. If the algorithm is complex, I still like to see the occasional helpful comment. Please, therefore, be as liberal as you see fit in the detail of the comments you apply to this editorial, for like code it is bound to increase its' clarity and usefulness. Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio Talk Show #120 is now online - Visualisation et analyse de code dans Visual Studio 201

    http://www.visualstudiotalkshow.com JP Duplessis: Visualisation et analyse de code dans Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate Mario profite de sa prsence au campus de Microsoft Redmond au tats-Unis pour discuter de visualisation et d'analyse de code avec Jean-Pierre Duplessis. Pour l'occasion Mario est accompagn d'un coanimateur d'un jour soit tienne Tremblay qui lui aussi se trouvait au campus de Microsoft au mme moment. Jean-Pierre Duplessis est architecte chez Microsoft dans la division Visual Studio....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

  • Debugging .NET 2.0 Assembly from unmanaged Code in VS2010?

    Ive run into a serious snag trying to debug a .NET 2.0 assembly that is called from unmanaged code in Visual Studio 2010. I maintain a host of components that using COM interop and custom .NET runtime hosting and ever since installing Visual Studio 2010 Ive been utterly blocked by VS 2010s inability to apparently debug .NET 2.0 assemblies when launching through unmanaged code. Heres what Im actually doing (simplified scenario to demonstrate): I have a .NET 2.0 assembly that is compiled for...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

  • Survey: How do you manage the source code for your personal projects?

    - by Linchi Shea
    This seems to be the survey season. Andy’s post on source controlling T-SQL code triggered a question that I always wanted to ask. Do you version control the source code for your various personal projects (i.e. not projects of your customer or employer)? Do you use a computer at home for your source control repository, or do you use a hosting service such as ProjectLocker ? If you do it yourself at home, what version control software you use? If you use a hosting service, what’s your experience?...(read more)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360  | Next Page >