Search Results

Search found 22986 results on 920 pages for 'allocation unit size'.

Page 6/920 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Is it useful to unit test methods where the only logic is guards?

    - by Vaccano
    Say I have a method like this: public void OrderNewWidget(Widget widget) { if ((widget.PartNumber > 0) && (widget.PartAvailable)) { WigdetOrderingService.OrderNewWidgetAsync(widget.PartNumber); } } I have several such methods in my code (the front half to an async Web Service call). I am debating if it is useful to get them covered with unit tests. Yes there is logic here, but it is only guard logic. (Meaning I make sure I have the stuff I need before I allow the web service call to happen.) Part of me says "sure you can unit test them, but it is not worth the time" (I am on a project that is already behind schedule). But the other side of me says, if you don't unit test them, and someone changes the Guards, then there could be problems. But the first part of me says back, if someone changes the guards, then you are just making more work for them (because now they have to change the guards and the unit tests for the guards). For example, if my service assumes responsibility to check for Widget availability then I may not want that guard any more. If it is under unit test, I have to change two places now. I see pros and cons in both ways. So I thought I would ask what others have done.

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? [closed]

    - by MushinNoShin
    Is it dangerous to substitute unit tests for user testing? A co-worker believes we can reduce the manual user testing we need to do by adding more unit tests. Is this dangerous? Unit tests seem to have a very different purpose than user testing. Aren't unit tests to inform design and allow breaking changes to be caught early? Isn't that fundamentally different than determining if an aspect of the system is correct as a whole of the system? Is this a case of substituting apples for oranges?

    Read the article

  • Should I make a seperate unit test for a method, if it only modifies the parent state?

    - by Dante
    Should classes, that modify the state of the parent class, but not itself, be unit tested separately? And by separately, I mean putting the test in the corresponding unit test class, that tests that specific class. I'm developing a library based on chained methods, that return a new instance of a new type in most cases, where a chained method is called. The returned instances only modify the root parent state, but not itself. Overly simplified example, to get the point across: public class BoxedRabbits { private readonly Box _box; public BoxedRabbits(Box box) { _box = box; } public void SetCount(int count) { _box.Items += count; } } public class Box { public int Items { get; set; } public BoxedRabbits AddRabbits() { return new BoxedRabbits(this); } } var box = new Box(); box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14); Say, if I write a unit test under the Box class unit tests: box.AddRabbits().SetCount(14) I could effectively say, that I've already tested the BoxedRabbits class as well. Is this the wrong way of approaching this, even though it's far simpler to first write a test for the above call, then to first write a unit test for the BoxedRabbits separately?

    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

  • Do you use unit tests at work? What benefits do you get from them?

    - by Anonymous
    I had planned to study and apply unit testing to my code, but after talking with my colleagues, some of them suggested to me that it's not necessary and it has a very little benefit. They also claim that only a few companies actually do unit testing with production software. I am curious how people have applied unit testing at work and what benefits they are getting from using them, e.g., better code quality, reduced development time in the long term, etc.

    Read the article

  • How do I mock memory allocation failures ?

    - by Andrei Ciobanu
    I want to extensively test some pieces of C code for memory leaks. On my machine I have 4 Gb of RAM, so it's very unlikely for a dynamic memory allocation to fail. Still I want to see the comportment of the code if memory allocation fails, and see if the recover mechanism is "strong" enough. What do you suggest ? How do I emulate an environment with lower memory specs ? How do i mock my tests ? EDIT: I want my tests to be code independent. I only have "access" to return values for different functions in the library I am testing. I am not supposed to write "test logic" inside the code I am testing.

    Read the article

  • Bad allocation exceptions in C++

    - by me1982
    Hello, In a school project of mine I was requested to create a program not using STL. In the program I use alot of Pointer* = new Something; if (Pointer == NULL) throw AllocationError(); My question is about allocation errors: 1. is there an autamtic exception thrown by new when allocation fails? 2. if so how can I catch it if I'm not using STL (#include "exception.h) 3. is using the NULL testing enugh? thank you. I'm using eclipseCDT(C++) with MinGW on windows 7.

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • organizing unit test

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic stack allocation in C++

    - by Poni
    I want to allocate memory on the stack. Heard of _alloca / alloca and I understand that these are compiler-specific stuff, which I don't like. So, I came-up with my own solution (which might have it's own flaws) and I want you to review/improve it so for once and for all we'll have this code working: /*#define allocate_on_stack(pointer, size) \ __asm \ { \ mov [pointer], esp; \ sub esp, [size]; \ }*/ /*#define deallocate_from_stack(size) \ __asm \ { \ add esp, [size]; \ }*/ void test() { int buff_size = 4 * 2; char *buff = 0; __asm { // allocate mov [buff], esp; sub esp, [buff_size]; } // playing with the stack-allocated memory for(int i = 0; i < buff_size; i++) buff[i] = 0x11; __asm { // deallocate add esp, [buff_size]; } } void main() { __asm int 3h; test(); } Compiled with VC9. What flaws do you see in it? Me for example, not sure that subtracting from ESP is the solution for "any kind of CPU". Also, I'd like to make the commented-out macros work but for some reason I can't.

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Unit testing

    - by Walter
    My company is fairly new to unit testing our code. I've been reading about TDD and unit testing for some time and am convinced of their value. I've attempted to convince our team that TDD is worth the effort of learning and changing our mindsets on how we program but it is a struggle. Which brings me to my question(s). There are many in the TDD community who are very religious about writing the test and then the code (and I'm with them), but for a team that is struggling with TDD does a compromise still bring added benefits? I can probably succeed in getting the team to write unit tests once the code is written (perhaps as a requirement for checking in code) and my assumption is that there is still value in writing those unit tests. What's the best way to bring a struggling team into TDD? And failing that is it still worth writing unit tests even if it is after the code is written? EDIT What I've taken away from this is that it is important for us to start unit testing, somewhere in the coding process. For those in the team who pickup the concept, start to move more towards TDD and testing first. Thanks for everyone's input. FOLLOW UP We recently started a new small project and a small portion of the team used TDD, the rest wrote unit tests after the code. After we wrapped up the coding portion of the project, those writing unit tests after the code were surprised to see the TDD coders already done and with more solid code. It was a good way to win over the skeptics. We still have a lot of growing pains ahead, but the battle of wills appears to be over. Thanks for everyone who offered advice!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

    - by Nicolas Goy
    I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

    Read the article

  • dynamic memory allocation in C

    - by avanish
    int main() { int p; scanf("%d",&p); fun() { int arr[p]; //isn't this similar to dynamic memory allocation?? } } //if not then what other objective is achieved using malloc and calloc?? //Someone please throw some light :-)

    Read the article

  • Memory allocation problem C/Cpp Windows critical error

    - by Andrew
    Hi! I have a code that need to be "translated" from C to Cpp, and i cant understand, where's a problem. There is the part, where it crashes (windows critical error send/dontSend): nDim = sizeMax*(sizeMax+1)/2; printf("nDim = %d sizeMax = %d\n",nDim,sizeMax); hamilt = (double*)malloc(nDim*sizeof(double)); printf("End hamilt alloc. %d allocated\n",(nDim*sizeof(double))); transProb = (double*)malloc(sizeMax*sizeMax*sizeof(double)); printf("End transProb alloc. %d allocated\n",(sizeMax*sizeMax*sizeof(double))); eValues = (double*)malloc(sizeMax*sizeof(double)); printf("eValues allocated. %d allocated\n",(sizeMax*sizeof(double))); eVectors = (double**)malloc(sizeMax*sizeof(double*)); printf("eVectors allocated. %d allocated\n",(sizeMax*sizeof(double*))); if(eVectors) for(i=0;i<sizeMax;i++) { eVectors[i] = (double*)malloc(sizeMax*sizeof(double)); printf("eVectors %d-th element allocated. %d allocated\n",i,(sizeMax*sizeof(double))); } eValuesPrev = (double*)malloc(sizeMax*sizeof(double)); printf("eValuesPrev allocated. %d allocated\n",(sizeMax*sizeof(double))); eVectorsPrev = (double**)malloc(sizeMax*sizeof(double*)); printf("eVectorsPrev allocated. %d allocated\n",(sizeMax*sizeof(double*))); if(eVectorsPrev) for(i=0;i<sizeMax;i++) { eVectorsPrev[i] = (double*)malloc(sizeMax*sizeof(double)); printf("eVectorsPrev %d-th element allocated. %d allocated\n",i,(sizeMax*sizeof(double))); } Log: nDim = 2485 sizeMax = 70 End hamilt alloc. 19880 allocated End transProb alloc. 39200 allocated eValues allocated. 560 allocated eVectors allocated. 280 allocated So it crashes at the start of the loop of allocation. If i delete this loop it crashes at the next line of allocation. Does it mean that with the numbers like this i have not enough memory?? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Checking Available Memory allocation in C#

    - by Jepe d Hepe
    i need to create a function in my application to set its available memory usage. What i want to do is when the application is running, and it reaches to the set memory settings, i'll have to switch from saving to the memory to saving to a file to the local drive to avoid application hang. Is this a better way to do? What things to consider when doing this in terms of memory allocation? Hope you understand :) Thanks, Jepe

    Read the article

  • How do you set a custom session when unit testing with wicket?

    - by vagabond
    I'm trying to run some unit tests on a wicket page that only allows access after you've logged in. In my JUnit test I cannot start the page or render it without setting the session. How do you set the session? I'm having problems finding any documentation on how to do this. WicketTester tester = new WicketTester(new MyApp()); ((MyCustomSession)tester.getWicketSession()).setItem(MyFactory.getItem("abc")); //Fails to start below, no session seems to be set tester.startPage(General.class); tester.assertRenderedPage(General.class);

    Read the article

  • When creating an library published on CodePlex, how "bad" would it be for the unit-test projects to rely on commercial products?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I have started a project on CodePlex for a WebDAV server implementation for .NET, so that I can host a WebDAV server in my own programs. This is both a learning/research project (WebDAV + server portion) as well as a project I think I can have much fun with, both in terms of making it and using it. However, I see a need to do mocking of types here in order to unit-testing properly. For instance, I will be relying on HttpListener for the web server portion of the WebDAV server, and since this type has no interface, and is sealed, I cannot easily make mocks or stubs out of it. Unless I use something like TypeMock. So if I used TypeMock in the unit-test projects on this library, how bad would this be for potential users? The projects are made in C# 3.5 for .NET 3.5 and 4.0, and the project files was created with Visual Studio 2010 Professional. The actual class libraries you would end up referencing in your software would of course not be encumbered with anything remotely like this, only the unit-test libraries. What's your thoughts on this? As an example, I have in my old code-base, which is private, the ability to just initiate a WebDAV server with just this: var server = new WebDAVServer(); This constructs, and owns, a HttpListener instance internally, and I would like to verify through unit-tests that if I dispose of this server object, the internal listener is disposed of. If, on the other hand, I use the overload where I hand it a listener object, this object should not be disposed of. Short of exposing the internal listener object to the outside world, something I'm a bit loath to do, how can I in a good way ensure that the object was disposed of? With TypeMock I can mock away parts of this object even though it isn't accessed through interfaces. The alternative would be for me to wrap everything in wrapper classes, where I have complete control.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing methods decorated with custom attributes

    - by Joel Cunningham
    I am trying to retrofit unit tests on to some existing code base. Both the class and method I want to unit test is decorated with custom attributes. These attributes are fairly sophisticated and I dont want them to run as part of the unit test. The only solution I have come up with is to compile the attribute out when I want to unit test. I dont really like this solution and would prefer to either replace it with a mocked attribute at runtime or prevent the attribute from running in a more elegant way. How do you unit test code that has class and method attributes that you dont want to run as part of a unit test? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

    - by Mystagogue
    I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

    Read the article

  • Unit test class inherited from ContextBoundObject and decorated with ContextAttribute

    - by Joel Cunningham
    I am trying to retrofit unit tests on to some existing code base. Both the class and method I want to unit test is decorated with custom attributes that are inherited from ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute. I dont want them to run as part of the unit test. The only solution I have come up with is to compile the attribute out when I want to unit test. I dont really like this solution and would prefer to either replace it with a mocked attribute at runtime or prevent the attribute from running in a more elegant way. How do you unit test code that has class and method attributes that inherit from ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute that you dont want to run as part of a unit test? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How often should we write unit tests?

    - by Midnight Blue
    Hi, I am recently introduced to the test-driven approach to development by my mentor at work, and he encourages me to write an unit-test whenenver "it makes sense." I understand some benefits of having a throughout unit-test suite for both regression testing and refractoring, but I do wonder how often and how throughout we should write unit-test. My mentor/development lead asks me to write a new unit test-case for a newly written control flow in a method that is already being tested by the exsisting test class, and I think it is an overkill. How often do you write your unit tests, and how detailed do you think your unit tests should be? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • .htaccess file size causes 500 Internal Server Error

    - by moobot
    As soon as my .htaccess goes over approx 8410 bytes, I get a 500 Internal Server Error. I don't think this is due to a bad redirect, as I have experimented with redirects in the .htaccess and then with just text that is commented out #. (no actual commands in the .htaccess file) Is there anything obvious that can cause this? Update: The site is on WordPress. Here are the redirects I was originally trying to add: RewriteEngine On ## 301 Redirects of old URLs to new # 301 Redirect 1 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^accesseries/underlay/prod_37\.html$ /product-category/accessories/underlays? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 2 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^accessories/acoustic-underlay/prod_29\.html$ /product/acoustic-underlay/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 3 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^accessories/cat_4\.html$ /product-category/accessories/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 4 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-flooring/accessories/cat_8\.html$ /product-category/accessories/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 5 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-flooring/bamboo-floor/natural-strandwoven-bamboo-semi-gloss-wide-board-135mm-click/prod_151\.html$ /product/natural-strand-woven-bamboo-semi-gloss-wide-board-135mm-click/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 6 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-flooring/bamboo-floor/strandwoven-chocolate-135mm-bamboo-flooring/prod_174\.html$ /product/strand-woven-chocolate-135mm-bamboo-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 7 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-flooring/bamboo-floor/strand-woven-kempas-bamboo-flooring/prod_173\.html$ /product/strand-woven-kempas-bamboo-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 8 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-flooring/bamboo-floor/strandwoven-walnut-wired-135mm-bamboo-flooring/prod_176\.html$ /product/strand-woven-walnut-wired-135mm-bamboo-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 9 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-flooring/cat_7\.html$ /product-category/bamboo-floor/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 10 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-bamboo-installation/info_8\.html$ /bamboo-installation/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 11 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=cart$ [NC] RewriteRule ^cart\.php$ /cart/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 12 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^contact-us/info_2\.html$ /contact-us/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 13 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^faqs/info_9\.html$ /faqs/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 14 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-floating-timber-floor/black-butt-engineered-floating-timber/prod_213\.html$ /product/black-butt-engineered-floating-timber/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 15 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-floating-timber-floor/doussie-engineered-floating-timber/prod_208\.html$ /product/doussie-engineered-floating-timber/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 16 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-floating-timber-floor/smoked-oak-engineered-floating-timber/prod_217\.html$ /product/smoked-oak-engineered-floating-timber/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 17 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=thanks$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ http://www.xxxxxxxxxx.com/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 18 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=13$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/samples/bamboo-flooring-samples/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 19 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=18$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/bamboo-plastic-composite/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 20 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=2$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/bamboo-floor/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 21 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=20$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /products/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 22 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=3$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/floating-timber-floor/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 23 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=5$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/laminate-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 24 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=6$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/accessories/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 25 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewCat&catId=saleItems$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/clearance-sale/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 26 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewDoc&docId=3$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /faqs/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 27 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewDoc&docId=4$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /faqs/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 28 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=137$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/laminate-flooring-goustein-wood/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 29 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=164$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/modern-black-brushed-finish-strand-woven-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 30 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=165$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/lime-wash-strand-woven-bamboo-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 31 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=168$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/country-bark/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 32 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=173$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product-category/bamboo-floor/14mm-bamboo-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 33 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=178$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/blue-gum-136-floating-timber/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 34 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=199$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/jarrah-laminate-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 35 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=205$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/elm-12mm-laminate-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 36 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=209$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/iroko-engineered-floating-timber/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 37 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=222$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/european-oak-engineered-floating-timber-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 38 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=236$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/black-forest-5mm-vinyl-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 39 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=65$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/stair-nose/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 40 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^act=viewProd&productId=83$ [NC] RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /product/laminate-flooring-warm-teak/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 41 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-flooring/12mm-laminate-flooring/blackbutt/prod_156\.html$ /product/blackbutt-12mm-laminate-floor/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 42 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-flooring/12mm-laminate-flooring/tasmanian-oak/prod_171\.html$ /product/tasmanian-oak/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 43 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-flooring/8-3mm-laminate-flooring/laminate-flooring-warm-teak/prod_8\.html$ /product/laminate-flooring-warm-teak/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 44 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-flooring/accessories/cat_6\.html$ /product-category/accessories/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 45 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-flooring/cat_5\.html$ /product-category/laminate-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 46 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-flooring/country-classic-12mm-laminate/cat_19\.html$ /product-category/laminate-flooring/12mm-country-classic-laminate-floor/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 47 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-laminate-installation/info_7\.html$ /laminate-installation/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 48 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^privacy-policy/info_4\.html$ /faqs/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 49 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^-quotation-request/info_5\.html$ /quotation-request/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 50 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^rainbow-flooring/cat_16\.html$ /product-category/rainbow-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 51 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^rainbow-flooring/walnut-rainbow-flooring/prod_112\.html$ /product/walnut-rainbow-flooring/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 52 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/12mm-laminate-floor-samples/kempas-laminate-floor-sample/prod_195\.html$ /product/kempas-laminate-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 53 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/12mm-laminate-floor-samples/spotted-gum-laminate-floor-sample/prod_196\.html$ /product/spotted-gum-laminate-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 54 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/12mm-laminate-floor-samples/tasmanian-oak-laminate-floor-sample/prod_197\.html$ /product/tasmanian-oak-laminate-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 55 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/bamboo-flooring-samples/cat_13\.html$ /product-category/samples/bamboo-flooring-samples/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 56 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/bamboo-flooring-samples/rosewood-strandwoven-bamboo-floor-135mm-click-sample/prod_191\.html$ /product/rosewood-strand-woven-bamboo-floor-135mm-click-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 57 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/cat_9\.html$ /samples/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 58 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/floating-timber-floor-samples/iroko-engineered-floating-timber-floor-sample/prod_223\.html$ /product/iroko-engineered-floating-timber-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 59 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/floating-timber-floor-samples/jarrah-engineered-floating-timber-sample/prod_224\.html$ /product/jarrah-engineered-floating-timber-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 60 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/floating-timber-floor-samples/merbau-engineered-floating-timber-sample/prod_226\.html$ /product/merbau-engineered-floating-timber-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 61 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/floating-timber-floor-samples/spotted-gum-engineered-floating-timber-sample/prod_228\.html$ /product/spotted-gum-engineered-floating-timber-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 62 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^samples/floating-timber-floor-samples/sydney-blue-gum-engineered-floating-timber-sample/prod_220\.html$ /product/sydney-blue-gum-engineered-floating-timber-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 63 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^shop\.php/-laminate-flooring/accessories/laminate-flooring-accessories-click-stairnose/prod_251\.html$ /product/stair-nose/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 64 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^shop\.php/-laminate-flooring/country-classic-12mm-laminate/country-classic-polar-white/prod_243\.html$ /product/country-classic-polar-white/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 65 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^shop\.php/samples/12mm-laminate-floor-samples/country-classic-polar-white/prod_244\.html$ /product/country-classic-polar-white-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 66 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^shop\.php/samples/12mm-laminate-floor-samples/rustic-oak-12mm-laminate-floor/prod_248\.html$ /product/rustic-oak-12mm-laminate-floor-sample/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 67 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^shop\.php/samples/vinyl-flooring-samples/cat_25\.html$ /product-category/samples/vinyl-flooring-samples/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 68 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^shop\.php/vinyl-flooring/cat_24\.html$ /product-category/vinyl-floor/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 69 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^solardeck-tiles/cat_22\.html$ /product-category/solardeck-tiles/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 70 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^solardeck-tiles/solardeck-tiles/prod_206\.html$ /product/solardeck-tiles/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] # 301 Redirect 71 RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ RewriteRule ^terms-conditions/info_3\.html$ /faqs/? [R=301,NE,NC,L] I'm getting errors like this in my log: Invalid command 'aminate-flooring/tasmanian-oak/prod_171\\.html$', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration, referer: http://www.xxxxxxxx.com/laminate-installation/ Invalid command ',NE,NC,L]', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration Invalid command ',L]#', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration

    Read the article

  • Javascript Open a Window Full Size (Mazimized)

    - by SAMIR BHOGAYTA
    function f_open_window_max( aURL, aWinName ) { var wOpen; var sOptions; sOptions = 'status=yes,menubar=yes,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,toolbar=yes'; sOptions = sOptions + ',width=' + (screen.availWidth - 10).toString(); sOptions = sOptions + ',height=' + (screen.availHeight - 122).toString(); sOptions = sOptions + ',screenX=0,screenY=0,left=0,top=0'; wOpen = window.open( '', aWinName, sOptions ); wOpen.location = aURL; wOpen.focus(); wOpen.moveTo( 0, 0 ); wOpen.resizeTo( screen.availWidth, screen.availHeight ); return wOpen; }

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test a class which requires a web service call?

    - by Chris Cooper
    I'm trying to test a class which calls some Hadoop web services. The code is pretty much of the form: method() { ...use Jersey client to create WebResource... ...make request... ...do something with response... } e.g. there is a create directory method, a create folder method etc. Given that the code is dealing with an external web service that I don't have control over, how can I unit test this? I could try and mock the web service client/responses but that breaks the guideline I've seen a lot recently: "Don't mock objects you don't own". I could set up a dummy web service implementation - would that still constitute a "unit test" or would it then be an integration test? Is it just not possible to unit test at this low a level - how would a TDD practitioner go about this?

    Read the article

  • why my unit testing taken more than normal time to run in VS 2010 Premium [on hold]

    - by kombo
    I have only 4 proeject in my solutions. Am trying to run a unit test for one of my class in one of the project. I Create the unit test by: Right clicking on the class choose the create unit test option. I followed the wizard to the end.which resulting the test creation. I just pass the values of the parameter and run the test. but my test keep running. Both surprisingly it runs on other developers pc. NB:My class is connecting to the database and my application is asp.net web form. i know this is not recommended but i want to have my test running now. i have tried alot of samples on the internet but still my problem persist. Could any one tell me the cause of the extreme slowness(more than 30 minutes)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >