Search Results

Search found 2332 results on 94 pages for 'green'.

Page 5/94 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Technically why is processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads?

    - by Jonas
    Spawning processes seam to be much more efficient in Erlang than starting new threads using the OS (i.e. by using Java or C). Erlang spawns thousands and millions of processes in a short period of time. I know that they are different since Erlang do per process GC and processes in Erlang are implemented the same way on all platforms which isn't the case with OS threads. But I don't fully understand technically why Erlang processes are so much more efficient and has much smaller memory footprint per process. Both the OS and Erlang VM has to do scheduling, context switches and keep track of the values in the registers and so on... Simply why isn't OS threads implemented in the same way as processes in Erlang? Does it have to support something more? and why does it need a bigger memory footprint? Technically why is processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads? And why can't threads in the OS be implemented and managed in the same efficient way?

    Read the article

  • jQuery, array form radio button name problem.

    - by borayeris
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>click div to select hidden options</title> <script type="text/javascript" src="jquery-1.4.4.js"></script> <style type="text/css"> .clickDiv { width:50px; height:50px; cursor:crosshair; } .red {border:1px #000 solid;} .green {border:1px #000 solid;} .redBG {background:#F00;} .greenBG {background:#0F0;} </style> <script type="text/javascript"> $(function() { $('div.clickDiv.red').click(function(){ var secilenMadde=$(this).attr('madde'); $('div#write').text(secilenMadde); $('input[name='+secilenMadde+'][value=red]').attr('checked', 'checked'); $('div.clickDiv.red[madde='+secilenMadde+']').addClass('redBG'); $('div.clickDiv.green[madde='+secilenMadde+']').removeClass('greenBG'); }); $('div.clickDiv.green').click(function(){ var secilenMadde=$(this).attr('madde'); $('div#write').text(secilenMadde); $('input[name='+secilenMadde+'][value=green]').attr('checked', 'checked'); $('div.clickDiv.green[madde='+secilenMadde+']').addClass('greenBG'); $('div.clickDiv.red[madde='+secilenMadde+']').removeClass('redBG'); }); }); </script> </head> <body> <div id="write"></div> <form id="formId" name="formName" method="post"> <table> <tr> <td><div class="clickDiv red" madde="line1"></div></td> <td><div class="clickDiv green" madde="line1"></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div class="clickDiv red" madde="line2"></div></td> <td><div class="clickDiv green" madde="line2"></div></td> </tr> </table> <label for="line1red"><input id="line1red" type="radio" name="line1" value="red" /> Red</label> <label for="line1green"><input id="line1green" type="radio" name="line1" value="green" /> Green</label><br /> <label for="line2red"><input type="radio" name="line2" value="red" /> Red</label> <label for="line2green"><input type="radio" name="line2" value="green" /> Green</label> </form> </body> </html> This works. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>click div to select hidden options</title> <script type="text/javascript" src="jquery-1.4.4.js"></script> <style type="text/css"> .clickDiv { width:50px; height:50px; cursor:crosshair; } .red {border:1px #000 solid;} .green {border:1px #000 solid;} .redBG {background:#F00;} .greenBG {background:#0F0;} </style> <script type="text/javascript"> $(function() { $('div.clickDiv.red').click(function(){ var secilenMadde=$(this).attr('madde'); $('div#write').text(secilenMadde); $('input[name='+secilenMadde+'][value=red]').attr('checked', 'checked'); $('div.clickDiv.red[madde='+secilenMadde+']').addClass('redBG'); $('div.clickDiv.green[madde='+secilenMadde+']').removeClass('greenBG'); }); $('div.clickDiv.green').click(function(){ var secilenMadde=$(this).attr('madde'); $('div#write').text(secilenMadde); $('input[name='+secilenMadde+'][value=green]').attr('checked', 'checked'); $('div.clickDiv.green[madde='+secilenMadde+']').addClass('greenBG'); $('div.clickDiv.red[madde='+secilenMadde+']').removeClass('redBG'); }); }); </script> </head> <body> <div id="write"></div> <form id="formId" name="formName" method="post"> <table> <tr> <td><div class="clickDiv red" madde="line[1]"></div></td> <td><div class="clickDiv green" madde="line[1]"></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div class="clickDiv red" madde="line[2]"></div></td> <td><div class="clickDiv green" madde="line[2]"></div></td> </tr> </table> <label for="line1red"><input id="line1red" type="radio" name="line[1]" value="red" /> Red</label> <label for="line1green"><input id="line1green" type="radio" name="line[1]" value="green" /> Green</label><br /> <label for="line2red"><input type="radio" name="line[2]" value="red" /> Red</label> <label for="line2green"><input type="radio" name="line[2]" value="green" /> Green</label> </form> </body> </html> This doesn't. I need input names as an array but it breaks my script. Why?

    Read the article

  • How to use your computer to save the world?

    - by Francisco Garcia
    Sometimes I miss the "help other people" factor within computer-related fields. However, there are little things that we all can do to make this a better place—beyond trying to eradicate annoying stuff such as Visual Basic. You could join a cloud computing network such as World Community Grid to fight cancer, write a charityware application such as Vim, improve office IT infrastructure to support telecommuting and reduce CO2 emissions, use an ebook reader to save paper, ... What else can we do to help others? Which projects can have the biggest impact?

    Read the article

  • Implement a threading to prevent UI block on a bug in an async function

    - by Marcx
    I think I ran up againt a bug in an async function... Precisely the getDirectoryListingAsync() of the File class... This method is supposted to return an object containing the lists of files in a specified folder. I found that calling this method on a direcory with a lot of files (in my tests more than 20k files), after few seconds there is a block on the UI until the process is completed... I think that this method is separated in two main block: 1) get the list of files 2) create the array with the details of the files The point 1 seems to be async (for a few second the ui is responsive), then when the process pass from point 1 to point 2 the block of the UI occurs until the complete event is dispathed... Here's some (simple) code: private function checkFiles(dir:File):void { if (dir.exists) { dir.addEventListener( FileListEvent.DIRECTORY_LISTING, listaImmaginiLocale); dir.getDirectoryListingAsync(); // after this point, for the firsts seconds the UI respond well (point 1), // few seconds later (point 2) the UI is frozen } } private function listaImmaginiLocale( event:FileListEvent ):void { // from this point on the UI is responsive again... } Actually in my projects there are some function that perform an heavy cpu usage and to prevent the UI block I implemented a simple function that after some iteration will wait giving time to UI to be refreshed. private var maxIteration:int = 150000; private function sampleFunct(offset:int = 0) :void { if (offset < maxIteration) { // do something // call the recursive function using a timeout.. // if the offset in multiple by 1000 the function will wait 15 millisec, // otherwise it will be called immediately // 1000 is a random number for the pourpose of this example, but I usually change the // value based on how much heavy is the function itself... setTimeout(function():void{aaa(++offset);}, (offset%1000?15:0)); } } Using this method I got a good responsive UI without afflicting performance... I'd like to implement it into the getDirectoryListingAsync method but I don't know if it's possibile how can I do it where is the file to edit or extend.. Any suggestion???

    Read the article

  • The Silverlight 4 Training Kit and Green Eggs &amp; Ham

    - by Jim Duffy
    Microsoft has released the Silverlight 4 Training Kit that steps you through the process of constructing Silverlight 4 business applications. “The Silverlight 4 Training Course includes a whitepaper explaining all of the new Silverlight 4 features, several hands-on-labs that explain the features, and a 8 unit course for building business applications with Silverlight 4. The business applications course includes 8 modules with extensive hands on labs as well as 25 accompanying videos that walk you through key aspects of building a business application with Silverlight. Key aspects in this course are working with numerous sandboxed and elevated out of browser features, the new RichTextBox control, implicit styling, webcam, drag and drop, multi touch, validation, authentication, MEF, WCF RIA Services, right mouse click, and much more!” What I think is pretty cool is that there are two ways to access this content, online and offline. Obviously the online version is great when you’re sitting at your desk and you’re connected to the web. What about when you don’t have a connection like when you’re located where you won’t eat green eggs & ham, like on a train or on plane perhaps? :-) You can download the offline version and hope that Sam I Am won’t be to distracting while you try to watch the videos or work your way through the labs. :-) Have a day. :-|

    Read the article

  • This code changes the textbox instantly to red. I want it like, click button then red, again then green

    - by user1803685
    This code changes the textbox instantly to red. I want it like, click button then red, again then green. private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { textBox1.BackColor = System.Drawing.Color.Black; if (textBox1.BackColor.Equals(System.Drawing.Color.Black)) { textBox1.BackColor = System.Drawing.Color.Red; } if (textBox1.BackColor.Equals(System.Drawing.Color.Red)) { textBox1.BackColor = System.Drawing.Color.Green; } if (textBox1.BackColor.Equals(System.Drawing.Color.Green)) { textBox1.BackColor = System.Drawing.Color.Blue; } if (textBox1.BackColor.Equals(System.Drawing.Color.Blue)) { textBox1.BackColor = System.Drawing.Color.Red; } }

    Read the article

  • Programmatically swap colors from a loaded bitmap to Red, Green, Blue or Gray, pixel by pixel.

    - by eyeClaxton
    Download source code here: http://www.eyeClaxton.com/download/delphi/ColorSwap.zip I would like to take a original bitmap (light blue) and change the colors (Pixel by Pixel) to the red, green, blue and gray equivalence relation. To get an idea of what I mean, I have include the source code and a screen shot. Any help would be greatly appreciated. If more information is needed, please feel free to ask. If you could take a look at the code below, I have three functions that I'm looking for help on. The functions "RGBToRed, RGBToGreen and RGBToRed" I can't seem to come up with the right formulas. unit MainUnit; interface uses Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Variants, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs, ExtCtrls, StdCtrls; type TMainFrm = class(TForm) Panel1: TPanel; Label1: TLabel; Panel2: TPanel; Label2: TLabel; Button1: TButton; BeforeImage1: TImage; AfterImage1: TImage; RadioGroup1: TRadioGroup; procedure FormCreate(Sender: TObject); procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject); private { Private declarations } public { Public declarations } end; var MainFrm: TMainFrm; implementation {$R *.DFM} function RGBToGray(RGBColor: TColor): TColor; var Gray: Byte; begin Gray := Round( (0.90 * GetRValue(RGBColor)) + (0.88 * GetGValue(RGBColor)) + (0.33 * GetBValue(RGBColor))); Result := RGB(Gray, Gray, Gray); end; function RGBToRed(RGBColor: TColor): TColor; var Red: Byte; begin // Not sure of the algorithm for this color Result := RGB(Red, Red, Red); end; function RGBToGreen(RGBColor: TColor): TColor; var Green: Byte; begin // Not sure of the algorithm for this color Result := RGB(Green, Green, Green); end; function RGBToBlue(RGBColor: TColor): TColor; var Blue: Byte; begin // Not sure of the algorithm for this color Result := RGB(Blue, Blue, Blue); end; procedure TMainFrm.FormCreate(Sender: TObject); begin BeforeImage1.Picture.LoadFromFile('Images\RightCenter.bmp'); end; procedure TMainFrm.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); var Bitmap: TBitmap; I, X: Integer; Color: Integer; begin Bitmap := TBitmap.Create; try Bitmap.LoadFromFile('Images\RightCenter.bmp'); for X := 0 to Bitmap.Height do begin for I := 0 to Bitmap.Width do begin Color := ColorToRGB(Bitmap.Canvas.Pixels[I, X]); case Color of $00000000: ; // Skip any Color Here! else case RadioGroup1.ItemIndex of 0: Bitmap.Canvas.Pixels[I, X] := RGBToBlue(Color); 1: Bitmap.Canvas.Pixels[I, X] := RGBToRed(Color); 2: Bitmap.Canvas.Pixels[I, X] := RGBToGreen(Color); 3: Bitmap.Canvas.Pixels[I, X] := RGBToGray(Color); end; end; end; end; AfterImage1.Picture.Graphic := Bitmap; finally Bitmap.Free; end; end; end. Okay, I apologize for not making it clearer. I'm trying to take a bitmap (blue in color) and swap the blue pixels with another color. Like the shots below.

    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

  • Content appearing under multiple categories; anything I can do to prevent duplicate penalty?

    - by dave
    I'm working with a CMS that allows me to post content in to multiple categories. So, I have this link: www.site.com/category/green-cars Here are the GREEN cars TITLE: A Big green car INTRO: this is a great big green car. But then I have this link: www.site.com/category/big-cars Here are the BIG cars TITLE: A Big green car INTRO: this is a great big green car. So essentially - for every item of content, header and the intro sentence is the same regardless of the category the item appears in. Will a search engine penalise the site for having the same content in this way? I've looked at canonical links, but I don't think this is relevant here. All my content points to the same page - but the content may appear in multiple categories first. Or am I worrying about nothing? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • java - unwanted object overwriting

    - by gosling
    Hello everyone! I'm trying to make a program that solves the logic wheels puzzle. I construct the root node and I try to produce the different child-nodes that are produced by making different moves of the wheels. The problem is that while I try to produce the children, the root node is overwrited,and everything is messed-up and I really don't know why. Here you can find the puzzle logic wheels. I represent the wheels as 3x3 arrays. Here is the code that implements the moves: public Node turn_right(Node aNode, int which_wheel) { Node newNode = new Node(aNode.getYellow_wheel(),aNode.getBlue_wheel(),aNode.getGreen_wheel()); int[][] yellow = new int[3][3]; int[][] blue = new int[3][3]; int[][] green = new int[3][3]; if(which_wheel==0) //turn yellow wheel of this node to right { yellow[1][0] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[0][0]; yellow[2][0] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[1][0]; yellow[2][1] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[2][0]; yellow[2][2] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[2][1]; yellow[1][2] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[2][2]; yellow[0][2] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[1][2]; yellow[0][1] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[0][2]; yellow[0][0] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[0][1]; blue = newNode.getBlue_wheel(); blue[1][0] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[1][2]; blue[2][0] = newNode.getYellow_wheel()[2][2]; green = newNode.getGreen_wheel(); } else if(which_wheel == 1)// turn blue wheel of this node to right { blue[1][0] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[0][0]; blue[2][0] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[1][0]; blue[2][1] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[2][0]; blue[2][2] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[2][1]; blue[1][2] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[2][2]; blue[0][2] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[1][2]; blue[0][1] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[0][2]; blue[0][0] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[0][1]; yellow = newNode.getYellow_wheel(); yellow[0][2] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[0][0]; yellow[1][2] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[1][0]; green = newNode.getGreen_wheel(); green[1][0] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[1][2]; green[2][0] = newNode.getBlue_wheel()[2][2]; } else if (which_wheel == 2)//turn green wheel of this node to right { green[0][0] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[0][1]; green[0][1] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[0][2]; green[0][2] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[1][2]; green[1][2] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[2][2]; green[2][2] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[2][1]; green[2][1] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[2][0]; green[2][0] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[1][0]; green[1][0] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[0][0]; yellow = newNode.getYellow_wheel(); blue = newNode.getBlue_wheel(); blue[0][2] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[0][0]; blue[1][2] = newNode.getGreen_wheel()[1][0]; } newNode= new Node(yellow,blue,green); return newNode; } There is another function, like this one that does the oposite:it turns the wheels to left. My problem is that I do not want object's aNode tables to be overwritten. Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Color drop down in Excel cell (with no text)? e.g. bgcolor = Red-Green-Amber-unknown

    - by adolf garlic
    I have an Excel sheet that I'm using to keep track of the status of certain things. I want to have a column which consists of cells containing a repeated drop down that allows you to select (as background) red amber green unknown I don't want any text in this cell, I just want a coloured block. Is this possible? I've tried playing around with data-validation-list (based on range containing all of said colours but to no avail)

    Read the article

  • Equivalent of public static final fields in Scala

    - by JT
    I'm learning Scala, and I can't figure out how to best express this simple Java class in Scala: public class Color { public static final Color BLACK = new Color(0, 0, 0); public static final Color WHITE = new Color(255, 255, 255); public static final Color GREEN = new Color(0, 0, 255); private static final int red; private static final int blue; private static final int green; public Color(int red, int blue, int green) { this.red = red; this.blue = blue; this.green = green; } // getters, et cetera } The best I have is the following: class Color(val red: Int, val blue: Int, val green: Int) object BLACK extends Color(0, 0, 0) object WHITE extends Color(255, 255, 255) object GREEN extends Color(0, 0, 255) But I lose the advantages of having BLACK, WHITE, and GREEN being tied to the Color namespace.

    Read the article

  • TV video constantly skips 1/2 second, plays 1 second; green on bottom

    - by Robert
    I just got DirecTV. It worked for a day, but now the TV video constantly skips 1/2 second, then plays 1 second. Also, the bottom 5th of the screen is solid green. The audio does not skip. I tried to do "Set up TV signal" (in Media Center) - but I get an error. See the post I just made here titled "Error - “IR Hardware not detected” - but it’s installed/working." Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • How to get a green to show up like the charging battery on the iPhone lock screen?

    - by tarheel
    I am trying to get a color to show up on screen just like the charging battery (shown here): After looking at the Apple Documentation on UIColor here, I have attempted using both colorWithHue:saturation:brightness:aplha: and colorWithRed:green:blue:alpha: to get a color to show up like that. For example when I use colorWithHue:.3 saturation:.84 brightness:1 alpha:.5 on a black background, it renders a color like this: or the colorWithRed:0 green:1 blue:0 alpha:.5 on a black background shows up like this: It doesn't have that translucent or glossy look to it. Is there a better method to use? Or do I just not have the values right? (I have tried many combinations)

    Read the article

  • C# wpf helix scale based mesh parenting using Transform3DGroup

    - by Rick2047
    I am using https://helixtoolkit.codeplex.com/ as a 3D framework. I want to move black mesh relative to the green mesh as shown in the attached image below. I want to make green mesh parent to the black mesh as the change in scale of the green mesh also will result in motion of the black mesh. It could be partial parenting or may be more. I need 3D rotation and 3D transition + transition along green mesh's length axis for the black mesh relative to the green mesh itself. Suppose a variable green_mesh_scale causing scale for the green mesh along its length axis. The black mesh will use that variable in order to move along green mesh's length axis. How to go about it. I've done as follows: GeometryModel3D GreenMesh, BlackMesh; ... double green_mesh_scale = e.NewValue; Transform3DGroup forGreen = new Transform3DGroup(); Transform3DGroup forBlack = new Transform3DGroup(); forGreen.Children.Add(new ScaleTransform3D(new Vector3D(1, green_mesh_scale , 1))); // ... transforms for rotation n transition GreenMesh.Transform = forGreen ; forBlack = forGreen; forBlack.Children.Add(new TranslateTransform3D(new Vector3D(0, green_mesh_scale, 0))); BlackMesh.Transform = forBlack; The problem with this is the scale transform will also be applied to the black mesh. I think i just need to avoid the scale part. I tried keeping all the transforms but scale, on another Transform3DGroup variable but that also not behaving as expected. Can MatrixTransform3D be used here some how? Also please suggest if this question can be posted somewhere else in stackexchange.

    Read the article

  • How do I install a Wimax usb driver?

    - by kakaz
    I am using wimax usb modem in Ubuntu 9.04 properly. I am familiar with Ubuntu 10.04 and try to install the same deb file to use my wimax USB modem, but it could not install and give me the following error message: $ sudo dpkg -i green-packet-wimax-usb_i386.iso.deb (Reading database ... 206628 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace green-packet-wimax-usb 1.12 (using green-packet-wimax- usb_i386.iso.deb) ... /var/lib/dpkg/info/green-packet-wimax-usb.prerm: 45: /etc/init.d/wimaxd: not found Removing any system startup links for /etc/init.d/wimaxd ... FATAL: Module mt7118_usb_os not found. Unpacking replacement green-packet-wimax-usb ... Setting up green-packet-wimax-usb (1.12) ... FATAL: Error inserting mt7118_usb_glue (/lib/modules/2.6.32-28-generic/kernel/drivers/net/mt7118_usb_glue.ko): Invalid module format dpkg: error processing green-packet-wimax-usb (--install): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Processing triggers for ureadahead ... Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ... Processing triggers for python-gmenu ... Rebuilding /usr/share/applications/desktop.en_US.utf8.cache... Processing triggers for libc-bin ... ldconfig deferred processing now taking place Processing triggers for python-support ... Errors were encountered while processing: The error (Line 9) give me some clue that the mt7118_usb_glue.ko kernel object can't insert it. So, I think this may be due to it's kernel dependencies. Can anybody tell me how I can install this kernel object to my new Ubuntu 10.04 kernel?

    Read the article

  • Where do I define a group policy that will set a users desktop background color to green the first time they log in?

    - by Tyler
    Servers: W2k8 R2 x64 Desktops: Win7 Pro x64 Our current group policy uses a custom ADM file to define certain properties of the desktop (Background Image (centered), Background Color is green (00 74 00)). This policy works for us, but the down-side is that policies defined in our custom ADM are only applied after a GPUpdate /Force is applied. We would like these desktop theme settings to be applied the first time the user logs onto the computer. I've been working on a new policy that forces the computer to wait for the network when the user logs on to handle folder redirection. The reason for writing the new policy was to resolve the issue that a user needs to run GPupdate /Force the first time they log in, so it doesn't make sense for me to implement the new policy if there is still something that requires GPUpdate /Force to get the user in the state that we want them. I've moved the setting for background image out into Admin Templates- Desktop- Desktop- "Desktop Wallpaper" so this is now being set properly when the user first logs in. Now I'm left with a black background until I force a group policy update. I have tried to play around with setting a default "Theme" and had limited success; this was not reliable enough to call a solution. I suppose I could set the background color with a script? Any thoughts? It feels like I'm missing something obvious, or that this should be much easier than it is.

    Read the article

  • Incorrect monitor colours

    - by PedroGabriel
    I'm using Ubuntu 11.10 and my monitor had a problem where Green is the bright colour, there's no way to change it in the monitor settings, so when I was using WinXP (I'm new in here) I changed the green to lower using Video Driver settings, in here (ubuntu) I don't know exactly how I would change the green colour to low, so my "black" would be seem has a real black, no green. Thanks for reading. Sorry for bad English.

    Read the article

  • R selecting duplicate rows

    - by Matt
    Okay, I'm fairly new to R and I've tried to search the documentation for what I need to do but here is the problem. I have a data.frame called heeds.data in the following form (some columns omitted for simplicity) eval.num, eval.count, ... fitness, fitness.mean, green.h.0, green.v.0, offset.0, green.h.1, green.v.1,...green.h.7, green.v.7, offset.7... And I have selected a row meeting the following criteria: best.fitness <- min(heeds.data$fitness.mean[heeds.data$eval.count = 10]) best.row <- heeds.data[heeds.data$fitness.mean == best.fitness] Now, what I want are all of the other rows with that have columns green.h.0 to offset.7 (a contiguous section of columns) equal to the best.row Basically I'm looking for rows that have some of the conditions the same as the "best" row. I thought I could just do this, heeds.best <- heeds.data$fitness[ heeds.data$green.h.0 == best.row$green.h.0 & ... ] But with 24 columns it seems like a stupid method. Looking for something a bit simpler with less manual typing. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How do I code a green button in UIActionSheet?

    - by Joshua
    I am using the code: { randomstatus=0; msg=[[NSString alloc]initWithFormat:@"Good job, do you want to continue?"]; UIActionSheet *actionSheet=[[UIActionSheet alloc]initWithTitle:msg delegate:self cancelButtonTitle:@"No" destructiveButtonTitle:@"Yes" otherButtonTitles:nil]; [actionSheet showInView:self.view]; [actionSheet release]; [msg release]; } I don't want to change the code, but I need the "destructiveButton" to be green instead of red. Is this possible, or do i need to use a different button?

    Read the article

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