Search Results

Search found 42756 results on 1711 pages for 'model based testing'.

Page 57/1711 | < Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >

  • Testing the Effectiveness of Your Web Marketing Strategies

    Web marketing is a great option to choose when seeking to establish an online customer base for your product. Yet there is more than just advertising, marketing and generating SEO content for your site as all these strategies could fail to generate sales for your product. Given that e-commerce is a dynamic, ever changing business platform, it is important that an online business owner keeps testing the effectiveness of their online marketing strategies.

    Read the article

  • Find out monitor make / model

    - by thefragileomen
    My friend has recently bought a second-hand vehicle with an in-car computer and it's wired up to a touchscreen monitor on the dashboard (very impressive!). Now, I've helped him install Ubuntu on it today but we can't establish the make and model of the connected touchscreen monitor to try and source the drivers to make the touchscreen function work. Are there any Linux commands to work out the make / model of an attached monitor? I've tried Google which pointed me towards the /etc/X11 directory but have had no joy with that.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Unit Testing with tSQLt

    When one considers the amount of time and effort that Unit Testing consumes for the Database Developer, is surprising how few good SQL Server Test frameworks are around. tSQLt , which is open source and free to use, is one of the frameworks that provide a simple way to populate a table with test data as part of the unit test, and check the results with what should be expected. Sebastian and Dennis, who created tSQLt, explain.

    Read the article

  • Predictive firing (in a tile-based game)

    - by n00bster
    I have a (turn-based) tile-based game, in which you can shoot at entities. You can move around with mouse and keyboard, it's all tile-based, except that bullets move "freely". I've got it all working just fine except that when I move, and the creatures shoot towards the player, they shoot towards the previous tiles.. resulting in ugly looking "miss hits" or lag. I think I need to implement some kind of predictive firing based on the bullet speed and the distance, but I don't quite know how to implement such a thing... Here's a simplified snip of my firing code. class Weapon { public void fire(int x, int y) { ... ... ... Creature owner = getOwner(); Tile targetTile = Zone.getTileAt(x, y); float dist = Vector.distance(owner.getCenterPosition(), targetTile.getCenterPosition()); Bullet b = new Bullet(); b.setPosition(owner.getCenterPosition()); // Take dist into account in the duration to get constant speed regardless of distance float duration = dist / 600f; // Moves the bullet to the centre of the target tile in the given amount of time (in seconds) b.moveTo(targetTile.getCenterPosition(), duration); // This is what I'm after // Vector v = predict the position // b.moveTo(v, duration); Zone.add(bullet); // Now the bullet gets "ticked" and moveTo will be implemented } } Movement of creatures is as simple as setting the position variable. If you need more information, just ask.

    Read the article

  • Agile team with no dedicated Tester members. Insane or efficient?

    - by MetaFight
    I'm a software developer. I've been thinking a lot about the efficiency of the Software Testers I've worked with so far in my career. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about the Software Testers role in general and have reached a potentially contentious conclusion: Non-developer Software Testers staff are less efficient at software testing than developers. Now, before everyone gets upset, hear me out. This isn't mere opinion: Software Testing and Software Development both require a lot of skills in common: Problem solving Thinking about corner cases Analytical skills The ability to define clear and concise step-by-step scenarios What developers have in addition to this is the ability to automate their tests. Yes, I know non-dev testers can automate their tests too, but that often then becomes a test maintenance issue. Because automating UI tests is essentially programming, non-dev members encounter all the same difficulties software developers encounter: Copy-pasta, lack of code reusibility/maintainability, etc. So, I was wondering. Why not replace all non-dev roles with developer roles? Developers have the skills required to perform Software Testing tasks, and they have the skills to automate tests and keep them maintainable. Would the following work: Hire a bunch of developers and split them into 2 roles: Software developers Software developers doing testing (some manual, mostly automated by writing integration tests, unit tests, etc) Software developers doing application support. (I've removed this as it is probably a separate question altogether) And, in our case since we're doing Agile development, rotate the roles every sprint or two. Also, if at all possible, try to have people spend their Developer stints and Testing stints on different projects. Ideally you would want to reduce the turnover rate per rotation. So maybe you could have 2 groups and make sure the rotation cycles of the groups are elided. So, for example, if each rotation was two sprints long, the two groups would have their rotations 1 sprint apart. That way there's only a 50% turn-over rate per sprint. Am I crazy, or could this work? (Obviously a key component to this working is that all devs want to be in the 3 roles. Let's assume I'm starting a new company and I can hire these ideal people) Edit I've removed the phrase "QA", as apparently we are using it incorrectly where I work.

    Read the article

  • Is JBehave a good choice for Web Service Automated Testing?

    - by Vanchinathan
    Hi All, We have a requirement at my workplace to automate the webservice testing. We have been using QTP scripts to do so. We as a team, Kind of leaning towards Jbehave as a choice. Is JBehave a good choice for web service functional testing automation? We do use Soap UI to test manually. But we are planning to automate the functional and regression testing to reduce the release cycle time. Suggestions welcome.

    Read the article

  • Cucumber vs. built-in testing? [Rails]

    - by yuval
    I asked a question about different testing frameworks yesterday. This question can be found here. Now that I have a better understanding of the different frameworks, I have a very simple question: With a basic understanding, but very limited experience with writing tests with rails' built in testing framework (basic assertions), would it be okay for me to jump directly to testing with RSpec, Webrat, and Cucumber? Thank you! As a side note: yes, this is an opinion based question, but I feel that the input received to this question is valuable enough to the community to keep this question open. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Pro's and Con's of unit testing after the fact.

    - by scope-creep
    I have a largish complex app around 27k lines. Its essentially a rule drive multithreaded processing engine, without giving too much away Its been partially tested as it's been built, certain components. Question I have, is what is the pro's and con's of doing unit testing on after the fact, so to speak, after its been implemented. It is clear that traditional testing is going to take 2-3+ months to test every facet, and it all needs to work, and that time is not available really. I've done a fair bit of unit testing in the past, but generally it's been on desktop automation or LOB apps, which are fairly simple. The app is itself is highly componentized internally, interface driven really. I've not decided on what particular framework to use. Any advice would be appreciated. What say you.

    Read the article

  • Django: Can class-based views accept two forms at a time?

    - by Hooman
    If I have two forms: class ContactForm(forms.Form): name = forms.CharField() message = forms.CharField(widget=forms.Textarea) class SocialForm(forms.Form): name = forms.CharField() message = forms.CharField(widget=forms.Textarea) and wanted to use a class based view, and send both forms to the template, is that even possible? class TestView(FormView): template_name = 'contact.html' form_class = ContactForm It seems the FormView can only accept one form at a time. In function based view though I can easily send two forms to my template and retrieve the content of both within the request.POST back. variables = {'contact_form':contact_form, 'social_form':social_form } return render(request, 'discussion.html', variables) Is this a limitation of using class based view (generic views)? Many Thanks

    Read the article

  • Solution: Testing Web Services with MSTest on Team Build

    - by Martin Hinshelwood
    Guess what. About 20 minutes after I fixed the build, Allan broke it again! Update: 4th March 2010 – After having huge problems getting this working I read Billy Wang’s post which showed me the light. The problem here is that even though the test passes locally it will not during an Automated Build. When you send your tests to the build server it does not understand that you want to spin up the web site and run tests against that! When you run the test in Visual Studio it spins up the web site anyway, but would you expect your test to pass if you told the website not to spin up? Of course not. So, when you send the code to the build server you need to tell it what to spin up. First, the best way to get the parameters you need is to right click on the method you want to test and select “Create Unit Test”. This will detect wither you are running in IIS or ASP.NET Development Server or None, and create the relevant tags. Figure: Right clicking on “SaveDefaultProjectFile” will produce a context menu with “Create Unit tests…” on it. If you use this option it will AutoDetect most of the Attributes that are required. /// <summary> ///A test for SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web.Services.IProfileService.SaveDefaultProjectFile ///</summary> // TODO: Ensure that the UrlToTest attribute specifies a URL to an ASP.NET page (for example, // http://.../Default.aspx). This is necessary for the unit test to be executed on the web server, // whether you are testing a page, web service, or a WCF service. [TestMethod()] [HostType("ASP.NET")] [AspNetDevelopmentServerHost("D:\\Workspaces\\SSW\\SSW\\SqlDeploy\\DEV\\Main\\SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web", "/")] [UrlToTest("http://localhost:3100/")] [DeploymentItem("SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web.dll")] public void SaveDefaultProjectFileTest() { IProfileService target = new ProfileService(); // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value string strComputerName = string.Empty; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value bool expected = false; // TODO: Initialize to an appropriate value bool actual; actual = target.SaveDefaultProjectFile(strComputerName); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); Assert.Inconclusive("Verify the correctness of this test method."); } Figure: Auto created code that shows the attributes required to run correctly in IIS or in this case ASP.NET Development Server If you are a purist and don’t like creating unit tests like this then you just need to add the three attributes manually. HostType – This attribute specified what host to use. Its an extensibility point, so you could write your own. Or you could just use “ASP.NET”. UrlToTest – This specifies the start URL. For most tests it does not matter which page you call, as long as it is a valid page otherwise your test may not run on the server, but may pass anyway. AspNetDevelopmentServerHost – This is a nasty one, it is only used if you are using ASP.NET Development Host and is unnecessary if you are using IIS. This sets the host settings and the first value MUST be the physical path to the root of your web application. OK, so all that was rubbish and I could not get anything working using the MSDN documentation. Google provided very little help until I ran into Billy Wang’s post  and I heard that heavenly music that all developers hear when understanding dawns that what they have been doing up until now is just plain stupid. I am sure that the above will work when I am doing Web Unit Tests, but there is a much easier way when doing web services. You need to add the AspNetDevelopmentServer attribute to your code. This will tell MSTest to spin up an ASP.NET Development server to host the service. Specify the path to the web application you want to use. [AspNetDevelopmentServer("WebApp1", "D:\\Workspaces\\SSW\\SSW\\SqlDeploy\\DEV\\Main\\SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web")] [DeploymentItem("SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web.dll")] [TestMethod] public void ProfileService_Integration_SaveDefaultProjectFile_Returns_True() { ProfileServiceClient target = new ProfileServiceClient(); bool isTrue = target.SaveDefaultProjectFile("Mav"); Assert.AreEqual(true, isTrue); } Figure: This AspNetDevelopmentServer will make sure that the specified web application is launched. Now we can run the test and have it pass, but if the dynamically assigned ASP.NET Development server port changes what happens to the details in your app.config that was generated when creating a reference to the web service? Well, it would be wrong and the test would fail. This is where Billy’s helper method comes in. Once you have created an instance of your service call, and it has loaded the config, but before you make any calls to it you need to go in and dynamically set the Endpoint address to the same address as your dynamically hosted Web Application. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System.Reflection; using System.ServiceModel.Description; using System.ServiceModel; namespace SSW.SQLDeploy.Test { class WcfWebServiceHelper { public static bool TryUrlRedirection(object client, TestContext context, string identifier) { bool result = true; try { PropertyInfo property = client.GetType().GetProperty("Endpoint"); string webServer = context.Properties[string.Format("AspNetDevelopmentServer.{0}", identifier)].ToString(); Uri webServerUri = new Uri(webServer); ServiceEndpoint endpoint = (ServiceEndpoint)property.GetValue(client, null); EndpointAddressBuilder builder = new EndpointAddressBuilder(endpoint.Address); builder.Uri = new Uri(endpoint.Address.Uri.OriginalString.Replace(endpoint.Address.Uri.Authority, webServerUri.Authority)); endpoint.Address = builder.ToEndpointAddress(); } catch (Exception e) { context.WriteLine(e.Message); result = false; } return result; } } } Figure: This fixes a problem with the URL in your web.config not being the same as the dynamically hosted ASP.NET Development server port. We can now add a call to this method after we created the Proxy object and change the Endpoint for the Service to the correct one. This process is wrapped in an assert as if it fails there is no point in continuing. [AspNetDevelopmentServer("WebApp1", D:\\Workspaces\\SSW\\SSW\\SqlDeploy\\DEV\\Main\\SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web")] [DeploymentItem("SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web.dll")] [TestMethod] public void ProfileService_Integration_SaveDefaultProjectFile_Returns_True() { ProfileServiceClient target = new ProfileServiceClient(); Assert.IsTrue(WcfWebServiceHelper.TryUrlRedirection(target, TestContext, "WebApp1")); bool isTrue = target.SaveDefaultProjectFile("Mav"); Assert.AreEqual(true, isTrue); } Figure: Editing the Endpoint from the app.config on the fly to match the dynamically hosted ASP.NET Development Server URL and port is now easy. As you can imagine AspNetDevelopmentServer poses some problems of you have multiple developers. What are the chances of everyone using the same location to store the source? What about if you are using a build server, how do you tell MSTest where to look for the files? To the rescue is a property called" “%PathToWebRoot%” which is always right on the build server. It will always point to your build drop folder for your solutions web sites. Which will be “\\tfs.ssw.com.au\BuildDrop\[BuildName]\Debug\_PrecompiledWeb\” or whatever your build drop location is. So lets change the code above to add this. [AspNetDevelopmentServer("WebApp1", "%PathToWebRoot%\\SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web")] [DeploymentItem("SSW.SQLDeploy.SilverlightUI.Web.dll")] [TestMethod] public void ProfileService_Integration_SaveDefaultProjectFile_Returns_True() { ProfileServiceClient target = new ProfileServiceClient(); Assert.IsTrue(WcfWebServiceHelper.TryUrlRedirection(target, TestContext, "WebApp1")); bool isTrue = target.SaveDefaultProjectFile("Mav"); Assert.AreEqual(true, isTrue); } Figure: Adding %PathToWebRoot% to the AspNetDevelopmentServer path makes it work everywhere. Now we have another problem… this will ONLY run on the build server and will fail locally as %PathToWebRoot%’s default value is “C:\Users\[profile]\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects”. Well this sucks… How do we get the test to run on any build server and any developer laptop. Open “Tools | Options | Test Tools | Test Execution” in Visual Studio and you will see a field called “Web application root directory”. This is where you override that default above. Figure: You can override the default website location for tests. In my case I would put in “D:\Workspaces\SSW\SSW\SqlDeploy\DEV\Main” and all the developers working with this branch would put in the folder that they have mapped. Can you see a problem? What is I create a “$/SSW/SqlDeploy/DEV/34567” branch from Main and I want to run tests in there. Well… I would have to change the value above. This is not ideal, but as you can put your projects anywhere on a computer, it has to be done. Conclusion Although this looks convoluted and complicated there are real problems being solved here that mean that you have a test ANYWHERE solution. Any build server, any Developer workstation. Resources: http://billwg.blogspot.com/2009/06/testing-wcf-web-services.html http://tough-to-find.blogspot.com/2008/04/testing-asmx-web-services-in-visual.html http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms243399(VS.100).aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/dscruggs/archive/2008/09/29/web-tests-unit-tests-the-asp-net-development-server-and-code-coverage.aspx http://www.5z5.com/News/?543f8bc8b36b174f Technorati Tags: VS2010,MSTest,Team Build 2010,Team Build,Visual Studio,Visual Studio 2010,Visual Studio ALM,Team Test,Team Test 2010

    Read the article

  • Java(standard, non standard) or Non Java based Web developement [closed]

    - by LivingThing
    I am new to web development. Initially i thought i would be learning LAMP or WAMP to acquire web developement skills but recently i came across Standard Java based (JSP, servlets) and Non standard Java based (GWT). My question is related to if and how LAMP can be compared with Java (standarad or non stadard) technologies. Is LAMP even comparable to Java based tech or it does something else or something more or less ? what requirement for a web developement projects require the choice that which of these 'technologies' should be choosen ? Thank YOu

    Read the article

  • GuestPost: Unit Testing Entity Framework (v1) Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator

    - by Eric Nelson
    Time for another guest post (check out others in the series), this time bringing together the world of mocking with the world of Entity Framework. A big thanks to Moses for agreeing to do this. Unit Testing Entity Framework Dependent Code using TypeMock Isolator by Muhammad Mosa Introduction Unit testing data access code in my opinion is a challenging thing. Let us consider unit tests and integration tests. In integration tests you are allowed to have environmental dependencies such as a physical database connection to insert, update, delete or retrieve your data. However when performing unit tests it is often much more efficient and productive to remove environmental dependencies. Instead you will need to fake these dependencies. Faking a database (also known as mocking) can be relatively straight forward but the version of Entity Framework released with .Net 3.5 SP1 has a number of implementation specifics which actually makes faking the existence of a database quite difficult. Faking Entity Framework As mentioned earlier, to effectively unit test you will need to fake/simulate Entity Framework calls to the database. There are many free open source mocking frameworks that can help you achieve this but it will require additional effort to overcome & workaround a number of limitations in those frameworks. Examples of these limitations include: Not able to fake calls to non virtual methods Not able to fake sealed classes Not able to fake LINQ to Entities queries (replace database calls with in-memory collection calls) There is a mocking framework which is flexible enough to handle limitations such as those above. The commercially available TypeMock Isolator can do the job for you with less code and ultimately more readable unit tests. I’m going to demonstrate tackling one of those limitations using MoQ as my mocking framework. Then I will tackle the same issue using TypeMock Isolator. Mocking Entity Framework with MoQ One basic need when faking Entity Framework is to fake the ObjectContext. This cannot be done by passing any connection string. You have to pass a correct Entity Framework connection string that specifies CSDL, SSDL and MSL locations along with a provider connection string. Assuming we are going to do that, we’ll explore another limitation. The limitation we are going to face now is related to not being able to fake calls to non-virtual/overridable members with MoQ. I have the following repository method that adds an EntityObject (instance of a Blog entity) to Blogs entity set in an ObjectContext. public override void Add(Blog blog) { if(BlogContext.Blogs.Any(b=>b.Name == blog.Name)) { throw new InvalidOperationException("Blog with same name already exists!"); } BlogContext.AddToBlogs(blog); } The method does a very simple check that the name of the new Blog entity instance doesn’t exist. This is done through the simple LINQ query above. If the blog doesn’t already exist it simply adds it to the current context to be saved when SaveChanges of the ObjectContext instance (e.g. BlogContext) is called. However, if a blog with the same name exits, and exception (InvalideOperationException) will be thrown. Let us now create a unit test for the Add method using MoQ. [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException_When_Blog_With_Same_Name_Already_Exits() { //(1) We shouldn't depend on configuration when doing unit tests! But, //its a workaround to fake the ObjectContext string connectionString = ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["MyBlogConnString"] .ConnectionString; //(2) Arrange: Fake ObjectContext var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); //(3) Next Line will pass, as ObjectContext now can be faked with proper connection string var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); //(4) Create fake ObjectQuery<Blog>. Will be used to substitute MyBlogContext.Blogs property var fakeObjectQuery = new Mock<ObjectQuery<Blog>>("[Blogs]", fakeContext.Object); //(5) Arrange: Set Expectations //Next line will throw an exception by MoQ: //System.ArgumentException: Invalid setup on a non-overridable member fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); //Act repo.Add(new Blog { Name = "NewBlog" }); } This test method is checking to see if the correct exception ([ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]) is thrown when a developer attempts to Add a blog with a name that’s already exists. On (1) a connection string is initialized from configuration file. To retrieve the full connection string. On (2) a fake ObjectContext is being created. The ObjectContext here is MyBlogContext and its being created using this var fakeContext = new Mock<MyBlogContext>(connectionString); This way a fake context is being created using MoQ. On (3) a BlogRepository instance is created. BlogRepository has dependency on generate Entity Framework ObjectContext, MyObjectContext. And so the fake context is passed to the constructor. var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext.Object); On (4) a fake instance of ObjectQuery<Blog> is being created to use as a substitute to MyObjectContext.Blogs property as we will see in (5). On (5) setup an expectation for calling Blogs property of MyBlogContext and substitute the return result with the fake ObjectQuery<Blog> instance created on (4). When you run this test it will fail with MoQ throwing an exception because of this line: fakeContext.SetupGet(c=>c.Blogs).Returns(fakeObjectQuery.Object); This happens because the generate property MyBlogContext.Blogs is not virtual/overridable. And assuming it is virtual or you managed to make it virtual it will fail at the following line throwing the same exception: fakeObjectQuery.Setup(q => q.Any(b => b.Name == "NewBlog")).Returns(true); This time the test will fail because the Any extension method is not virtual/overridable. You won’t be able to replace ObjectQuery<Blog> with fake in memory collection to test your LINQ to Entities queries. Now lets see how replacing MoQ with TypeMock Isolator can help. Mocking Entity Framework with TypeMock Isolator The following is the same test method we had above for MoQ but this time implemented using TypeMock Isolator: [TestMethod] [ExpectedException(typeof(InvalidOperationException))] public void Add_New_Blog_That_Already_Exists_Should_Throw_InvalidOperationException() { //(1) Create fake in memory collection of blogs var fakeInMemoryBlogs = new List<Blog> {new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}}; //(2) create fake context var fakeContext = Isolate.Fake.Instance<MyBlogContext>(); //(3) Setup expected call to MyBlogContext.Blogs property through the fake context Isolate.WhenCalled(() => fakeContext.Blogs) .WillReturnCollectionValuesOf(fakeInMemoryBlogs.AsQueryable()); //(4) Create new blog with a name that already exits in the fake in memory collection in (1) var blog = new Blog {Name = "FakeBlog"}; //(5) Instantiate instance of BlogRepository (Class under test) var repo = new BlogRepository(fakeContext); //(6) Acting by adding the newly created blog () repo.Add(blog); } When running the above test method it will pass as the Add method of BlogRepository is going to throw an InvalidOperationException which is the expected behaviour. Nothing prevents us from faking out the database interaction! Even faking ObjectContext  at (2) didn’t require a connection string. On (3) Isolator sets up a faking result for MyBlogContext.Blogs when its being called through the fake instance fakeContext created on (2). The faking result is just an in-memory collection declared an initialized on (1). Finally at (6) action we call the Add method of BlogRepository passing a new Blog instance that has a name that’s already exists in the fake in-memory collection which we set up at (1). As expected the test will pass because it will throw the expected exception defined on top of the test method - InvalidOperationException. TypeMock Isolator succeeded in faking Entity Framework with ease. Conclusion We explored how to write a simple unit test using TypeMock Isolator for code which is using Entity Framework. We also explored a few of the limitations of other mocking frameworks which TypeMock is successfully able to handle. There are workarounds that you can use to overcome limitations when using MoQ or Rhino Mock, however the workarounds will require you to write more code and your tests will likely be more complex. For a comparison between different mocking frameworks take a look at this document produced by TypeMock. You might also want to check out this open source project to compare mocking frameworks. I hope you enjoyed this post Muhammad Mosa http://mosesofegypt.net/ http://twitter.com/mosessaur Screencast of unit testing Entity Framework Related Links GuestPost: Introduction to Mocking GuesPost: Typemock Isolator – Much more than an Isolation framework

    Read the article

  • Enable Claims based Auth on a SP2010 website, after it has been provisioned

    - by Sahil Malik
    Ad:: SharePoint 2007 Training in .NET 3.5 technologies (more information). When you provision a web app in SP2010, you can choose it to use Claims Based Auth or Classic Auth right through the GUI.  However, after you have provisioned a web app, there is no GUI to switch from Classic to Claims based. So the below powershell script will let you convert a SP2010 website to claims based auth after it has been provisioned. 1: $w = Get-SPWebApplication "http://sp2010" 2: $w.UseClaimsAuthentication = "True"; 3: $w.Update() The user running the above script should be a member of the SharePoint_Shell_Access role on the config DB, and a member of the WSS_ADMIN_WPG local group. Comment on the article ....

    Read the article

  • Weekend reading: Microsoft/Oracle and SkyDrive based code-editor

    - by jamiet
    A couple of news item caught my eye this weekend that I think are worthy of comment. Microsoft/Oracle partnership to be announced tomorrow (24/06/2013) According to many news site Microsoft and Oracle are about to announce a partnership (Oracle set for major Microsoft, Salesforce, Netsuite partnerships) and they all seem to be assuming that it will be something to do with “the cloud”. I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment, Microsoft are heavily pushing Azure and Oracle seem (to me anyway) to be rather lagging behind in the cloud game. More specifically folks seem to be assuming that Oracle’s forthcoming 12c database release will be offered on Azure. I did a bit of reading about Oracle 12c and one of its key pillars appears to be that it supports multi-tenant topologies and multi-tenancy is a common usage scenario for databases in the cloud. I’m left wondering then, if Microsoft are willing to push a rival’s multi-tenant solution what is happening to its own cloud-based multi-tenant offering – SQL Azure Federations. We haven’t heard anything about federations for what now seems to be a long time and moreover the main Program Manager behind the technology, Cihan Biyikoglu, recently left Microsoft to join Twitter. Furthermore, a Principle Architect for SQL Server, Conor Cunningham, recently presented the opening keynote at SQLBits 11 where he talked about multi-tenant solutions on SQL Azure and not once did he mention federations. All in all I don’t have a warm fuzzy feeling about the future of SQL Azure Federations so I hope that that question gets asked at some point following the Microsoft/Oracle announcement. Text Editor on SkyDrive with coding-specific features Liveside.net got a bit of a scoop this weekend with the news (Exclusive: SkyDrive.com to get web-based text file editing features) that Microsoft’s consumer-facing file storage service is going to get a new feature – a web-based code editor. Here’s Liveside’s screenshot: I’ve long had a passing interest in online code editors, indeed back in December 2009 I wondered out loud on this blog site: I started to wonder when the development tools that we use would also become cloud-based. After all, if we’re using cloud-based services does it not make sense to have cloud-based tools that work with them? I think it does. Project Houston Since then the world has moved on. Cloud 9 IDE (https://c9.io/) have blazed a trail in the fledgling world of online code editors and I have been wondering when Microsoft were going to start playing catch-up. I had no doubt that an online code editor was in Microsoft’s future; its an obvious future direction, why would I want to have to download and install a bloated text editor (which, arguably, is exactly what Visual Studio amounts to) and have to continually update it when I can simply open a web browser and have ready access to all of my code from wherever I am. There are signs that Microsoft is already making moves in this direction, after all the URL for their new offering Team Foundation Service doesn’t mention TFS at all – my own personalised URL for Team Foundation Service is http://jamiet.visualstudio.com – using “Visual Studio” as the domain name for a service that isn’t strictly speaking part of Visual Studio leads me to think that there’s a much bigger play here and that one day http://visualstudio.com will house an online code editor. With that in mind then I find Liveside’s revelation rather intriguing, why would a code editing tool show up in Skydrive? Perhaps SkyDrive is going to get integrated more tightly into TFS, I’m very interested to see where this goes. The larger question playing on my mind though is whether an online code editor from Microsoft will support SQL Server developers. I have opined before (see The SQL developer gap) about the shoddy treatment that SQL Server developers have to experience from Microsoft and I haven’t seen any change in Microsoft’s attitude in the three and a half years since I wrote that post. I’m constantly bewildered by the lack of investment in SQL Server developer productivity compared to the riches that are lavished upon our appdev brethren. When you consider that SQL Server is Microsoft’s third biggest revenue stream it is, frankly, rather insulting. SSDT was a step in the right direction but the hushed noises I hear coming out of Microsoft of late in regard to SSDT don’t bode fantastically well for its future. So, will an online code editor from Microsoft support T-SQL development? I have to assume not given the paucity of investment on us lowly SQL Server developers over the last few years, but I live in hope! Your thoughts in the comments section please. I would be very interested in reading them. @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • TDD/Tests too much an overhead/maintenance burden?

    - by MeshMan
    So you've heard it many times from those who do not truly understand the values of testing. Just to start things out, I'm a follower of Agile and Testing... I recently had a discussion about performing TDD on a product re-write where the current team does not practice unit testing on any level, and probably have never heard of the dependency injection technique or test patterns/design etc (we won't even get on to clean code). Now, I am fully responsible for the rewrite of this product and I'm told that attempting it in the fashion of TDD, will merely make it a maintenance nightmare and impossible for the team maintain. Furthermore, as it's a front-end application (not web-based), adding tests is pointless, as the business drive changes (by changes they mean improvements of course), the tests will become out of date, other developers who come on to the project in the future will not maintain them and become more of a burden for them to fix etc. I can understand that TDD in a team that does not currently hold any testing experience doesn't sound good, but my argument in this case is that I can teach my practice to those around me, but further more, I know that TDD makes BETTER software. Even if I was to produce the software using TDD, and throw all the tests away on handing it over to a maintenance team, it surely would be a better approach than not using TDD at all from the start? I've been shot down as I've mentioned doing TDD on most projects for a team that have never heard of it. The thought of "interfaces" and strange looking DI constructors scares them off... Can anyone please help me in what is normally a very short conversation of trying to sell TDD and my approach to people? I usually have a very short window of argument before falling at the knees to the company/team.

    Read the article

  • New Silverligh-based Protal for Windows Azure AppFabric Labs

    - by Shaun
    Wade Wegner introduced a good news about the Windows Azure platform, which is the new Silverlight-based portal for Windows Azure AppFabric Labs had been launched. You can have a look here. As we know the new Silverlight-based portal of Windows Azure had been published on the Nov of last year but the AppFabric part still not changed. (Clicked the AppFabric link will direct to the old portal.) Now the Silverlight-based AppFabric portal is available for Labs. For more information about this new portal and new features with the latest Windows Azure AppFabric CTP please refer to Wade’s blob post.   Hope this helps, Shaun All documents and related graphics, codes are provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. Copyright © Shaun Ziyan Xu. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • What can you do to decrease the number of live issues with applications?

    - by User Smith
    First off I have seen this post which is slightly similar to my question. : What can you do to decrease the number of deployment bugs of a live website? Let me layout the situation for you. The team of programmers that I belong to have metrics associated with our code. Over the last several months our errors in our live system have increased by a large amount. We require that our updates to applications be tested by at least one other programmer prior to going live. I personally am completely against this as I think that applications should be tested by end users as end users are much better testers than programmers, I am not against programmers testing, obviously programmers need to test code, but they are most of the times too close to the code. The reason I specify that I think end users should test in our scenario is due to the fact that we don't have business analysts, we just have programmers. I come from a background where BAs took care of all the testing once programmers checked off it was ready to go live. We do have a staging environment in place that is a clone of the live environment that we use to ensure that we don't have issues between development and live environments this does catch some bugs. We don't do end user testing really at all, I should say we don't really have anyone testing our code except programmers, which I think gets us into this mess (Ideally, we would have BAs or QA or professional testers test). We don't have a QA team or anything of that nature. We don't have test cases for our projects that are fully laid out. Ok, I am just a peon programmer at the bottom of the rung, but I am probably more tired of these issues than the managers complaining about them. So, I don't have the ability to tell them you are doing it all wrong.....I have tried gentle pushes in the correct direction. Any advice or suggestions on how to alleviate this issue is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What can be done to decrease the number of live issues with applications?

    - by User Smith
    First off I have seen this post which is slightly similar to my question. : What can you do to decrease the number of deployment bugs of a live website? Let me layout the situation for you. The team of programmers that I belong to have metrics associated with our code. Over the last several months our errors in our live system have increased by a large amount. We require that our updates to applications be tested by at least one other programmer prior to going live. I personally am completely against this as I think that applications should be tested by end users as end users are much better testers than programmers, I am not against programmers testing, obviously programmers need to test code, but they are most of the times too close to the code. The reason I specify that I think end users should test in our scenario is due to the fact that we don't have business analysts, we just have programmers. I come from a background where BAs took care of all the testing once programmers checked off it was ready to go live. We do have a staging environment in place that is a clone of the live environment that we use to ensure that we don't have issues between development and live environments this does catch some bugs. We don't do end user testing really at all, I should say we don't really have anyone testing our code except programmers, which I think gets us into this mess (Ideally, we would have BAs or QA or professional testers test). We don't have a QA team or anything of that nature. We don't have test cases for our projects that are fully laid out. Ok, I am just a peon programmer at the bottom of the rung, but I am probably more tired of these issues than the managers complaining about them. So, I don't have the ability to tell them you are doing it all wrong.....I have tried gentle pushes in the correct direction. Any advice or suggestions on how to alleviate this issue ?

    Read the article

  • The New My Oracle Support User Interface (HTML-based)

    - by user793553
    A single source for learning about the latest enhancements to the My Oracle Support User Interface... On January 27, 2012, we launched a new My Oracle Support HTML-based user interface (UI). The new user interface is built using Oracle’s Application Development Framework and is our first step towards providing a single online support portal for our customers and partners; one that all users will transition to in the coming months. Further enhancements to the HTML-based user interface are planned for April 13, 2012. We will transition users of the standard Flash-based interface in the coming months. To help facilitate a smooth transition, we invite you to preview and begin using the new My Oracle Support interface by going to supporthtml.oracle.com and sign in using your Single Sign-on username and password For full information regarding functionality, supported browsers and links to quick and easy videos on how to navigate the new UI, please check out Doc ID 1385682.1 

    Read the article

  • On-line Based Conferencing For Admin Panel

    - by Tim Marshall
    Working on my admin panels work station section which will allow the admin to use simple office tools such as word editors, calculators and whatnot. Under this section of the admin panel, I would like to add a conferencing feature which will allow any administrator to connect with another administrator 1-2-1 under the 1-2-1 Conferencing section, or to join a meeting under 'live meeting' section. Upon my search for on-line based, I found there are all these, what seem to be great applications out there, however not all of them are on-line based, and come with a price! I would like to a purely on-line based conferencing/meeting/1-2-1 feature which will allow administrators to communicate via text or sound, stream their video, share their screen and sending of files. I know this sounds like a big feature, and I am not asking for someone to answer by programming one for my website! Does anyone know my best solution to progress to having this feature on my website, any tutorials or free to use, free to modify web plugins? Thank you for your help, Best Regards, Tim

    Read the article

  • Web Based School/College ERP

    - by Ashok
    We are planning to build a Web Based School/College ERP. The main problem we face is Hardware support. Since it is Web Based, it is not possible to implement Biometrics. But most of our clients do ask for Biometrics. I hope we need to use a desktop application to do that. Can you please give some suggestions for this? Another thing is, here we don't have stable internet connection. We frequently face disconnection. This is another problem for Web Based CRM. In HTML5 there is a feature called Offline storage. Is it possible to use this feature for such dynamic ERP? For example, let's say we need to enter marks for the students. Net got disconnected. Is it possible to use HTML5 offline feature to save the marks offline and upload them when we got connection back?

    Read the article

  • What's wrong performing unit test against concrete implementation if your frameworks are not going to change?

    - by palm snow
    First a bit of background: We are re-architecting our product suite that was written 10 years ago and served its purpose. One thing that we cannot change is the database schema as we have 500+ client base using this system. Our db schema has over 150+ tables. We have decided on using Entity Framework 4.1 as DAL and still evaluating various frameworks for storing our business logic. I am investigation to bring unit testing into the mix but I also confused as to how far I need to go with setting up a full blown TDD environment. One aspect of setting up unit testing is by getting into implementing Repository, unit of work and mocking frameworks etc. This mean there will be cost and investment on the code-bloat associated with all these frameworks. I understand some of this could be auto-generated but when it comes to things like behaviors, that will be mostly hand written. Just to be clear, I am not questioning the important of unit testing your code. I am just not sure we need all its components (like repository, mocking etc.) when we are fairly certain of storage mechanism/framework (SQL Server/Entity Framework). All that code bloat with generic repositories make sense when you need a generic layers with ability to change this whenever you like however its very likely a YAGNI in our case. What we need is more of integration testing where we can unit-test our code with concrete repository objects and test data in database. In this scenario, just running integration test seem to be more beneficial in our case. Any thoughts if I am missing any thing here?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >