Search Results

Search found 39118 results on 1565 pages for 'boost unit test framework'.

Page 6/1565 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • What is Boost missing?

    - by Robert Gould
    After spending most of my waking time on Stack Overflow, for better or for worse, I've come to notice how 99% of the C++ questions are answered with "use boost::wealreadysolvedyourproblem", but there must definitely be a few areas Boost doesn't cover, but would be better if it did. So what features is Boost missing? I'll start by saying: boost::sql (although SOCI should try to become a legal part of boost) boost::json (although TinyJSON should try to become a legal part of boost) boost::audio (no idea about a good boost-like C++ library) PS: The purpose is to compile a reasonable list, and hopefully Boost-like solutions out there that aren't yet a part of Boost, so no silly stuff like boost::turkey please.

    Read the article

  • Boost Thread Specific Storage Question (boost/thread/tss.hpp)

    - by Hassan Syed
    The boost threading library has an abstraction for thread specific (local) storage. I have skimmed over the source code and it seems that the TSS functionality can be used in an application with any existing thread regardless of weather it was created from boost::thread --i.e., this implies that certain callbacks are registered with the kernel to hook in a callback function that may call the destructor of any TSS objects when the thread or process is going out of scope. I have found these callbacks. I need to cache HMAC_CTX's from OpenSSL inside the worker threads of various web-servers (see this, detailed, question for what I am trying to do), and as such I do not controll the life-time of the thread -- the web-server does. Therefore I will use the TSS functionality on threads not created by boost::thread. I just wanted to validate my assumptions before I started implementing the caching logic, are there any flaws in my logic ?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Myths and Practices

    We all understand the value of Unit Testing, but how come so few organisations maintain unit tests for their in-house applications? We can no longer pretend that unit testing is a universal panacea for ensuring less-buggy applications. Instead, we should be prepared to actively justify the use of unit tests, and be more savvy about where in the development cycle the unit test resources should be most effectively used.

    Read the article

  • Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

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

    Read the article

  • Advancing Code Review and Unit Testing Practice

    - by Graviton
    As a team lead managing a group of developers with no experience ( and see no need) in code review and unit testing, how can you advance code review and unit testing practice? How are you going to create a way so that code review and unit testing to naturally fit into the developer's flow? One of the resistance of these two areas is that "we are always tight on dateline, so no time for code review and unit testing". Another resistance for code review is that we currently don't know how to do it. Should we review the code upon every check-in, or review the code at a specified date?

    Read the article

  • Learning Zend Framework 1 or 2?

    - by ehijon
    I have programmed for a few years in php and now I'm going to learn zend framwork. Zend is very popular and there are a lot of tutorials, books and documentation out there. But I saw in the last months that there is a second version of Zend, but it's not so used and popular, not yet. I think it is better to start with a new version, but I don't know what to do now, as when I see job offers many people require the first version. Which version do you suggest me?

    Read the article

  • Isolated Unit Tests and Fine Grained Failures

    - by Winston Ewert
    One of the reasons often given to write unit tests which mock out all dependencies and are thus completely isolated is to ensure that when a bug exists, only the unit tests for that bug will fail. (Obviously, an integration tests may fail as well). That way you can readily determine where the bug is. But I don't understand why this is a useful property. If my code were undergoing spontaneous failures, I could see why its useful to readily identify the failure point. But if I have a failing test its either because I just wrote the test or because I just modified the code under test. In either case, I already know which unit contains a bug. What is the useful in ensuring that a test only fails due to bugs in the unit under test? I don't see how it gives me any more precision in identifying the bug than I already had.

    Read the article

  • unit testing on ARM

    - by NomadAlien
    We are developing application level code that runs on an ARM processor. The BSP (low level code) is being delivered by a 3d party so our code sits just on top of this abstraction layer (code is written in c++). To do unit testing, I assume we will have to mock/stub out the BSP library(essentially abstracting out the HW), but what I'm not sure of is if I write/run the unit test on my pc, do I compile it with for example GCC? Normally we use Realview compiler to compile our code for the ARM. Can I assume that if I compile and run the code with x86 compiler and the unit tests pass that it will also pass when compiled with RealView compiler? I'm not sure how much difference the compiler makes and if you can trust that if the x86 compiled code pass the unit tests that you can also be confident that the Realview compiled code is ok.

    Read the article

  • Scenario to illustrate how unit testing leads to better design

    - by Cocowalla
    For an internal training session, I'm trying to come up with a simple scenario that illustrates how unit testing leads to better design, by forcing you to think about things like coupling before you start coding. The idea is that I get the participants to code something first, without considering unit testing, then we do it again, but considering unit testing. Hopefully the code produced second time round should be more decoupled and maintainable. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario that can be coded quickly, yet can still demonstrate how unit testing can lead to better overall design.

    Read the article

  • DRY, string, and unit testing

    - by Rodrigue
    I have a recurring question when writing unit tests for code that involves constant string values. Let's take an example of a method/function that does some processing and returns a string containing a pre-defined constant. In python, that would be something like: STRING_TEMPLATE = "/some/constant/string/with/%s/that/needs/interpolation/" def process(some_param): # We do some meaningful work that gives us a value result = _some_meaningful_action() return STRING_TEMPLATE % result If I want to unit test process, one of my tests will check the return value. This is where I wonder what the best solution is. In my unit test, I can: apply DRY and use the already defined constant repeat myself and rewrite the entire string def test_foo_should_return_correct_url(): string_result = process() # Applying DRY and using the already defined constant assert STRING_TEMPLATE % "1234" == string_result # Repeating myself, repeating myself assert "/some/constant/string/with/1234/that/needs/interpolation/" == url The advantage I see in the former is that my test will break if I put the wrong string value in my constant. The inconvenient is that I may be rewriting the same string over and over again across different unit tests.

    Read the article

  • boost::program_options bug or feature?

    - by Dmitriy
    Very simple example: #include <string> #include <boost/program_options.hpp> namespace po = boost::program_options; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { po::options_description recipients("Recipient(s)"); recipients.add_options() ("csv", po::value<std::string>(), "" ) ("csv_name", po::value<unsigned>(), "" ) ; po::options_description cmdline_options; cmdline_options.add(recipients); po::variables_map vm; po::store(po::command_line_parser(argc, argv).options(cmdline_options).run(), vm); po::notify(vm); return 0; } And some tests: >Test --csv test in option 'csv_name': invalid option value >Test --csv_name test in option 'csv_name': invalid option value >Test --csv_name 0 >Test --csv text in option 'csv_name': invalid option value >Test --csv 0 >Test --csv_name 0 >Test --csv_name 0 --csv text multiple occurrences Looks like that boost::program_option threats parameter "csv" as "csv_name". Is it a feature or bug?

    Read the article

  • Are there any concerns with using a static read-only unit of work so that it behaves like a cache?

    - by Rowan Freeman
    Related question: How do I cache data that rarely changes? I'm making an ASP.NET MVC4 application. On every request the security details about the user will need to be checked with the area/controller/action that they are accessing to see if they are allowed to view it. The security information is stored in the database. For example: User Permission UserPermission Action ActionPermission A "Permission" is a token that is applied to an MVC action to indicate that the token is required in order to access the action. Once a user is given the permission (via the UserPermission table) then they have the token and can therefore access the action. I've been looking in to how to cache this data (since it rarely changes) so that I'm only querying in-memory data and not hitting a database (which is a considerable performance hit at the moment). I've tried storing things in lists, using a caching provider but I either run in to problems or performance doesn't improve. One problem that I constantly run in to is that I'm using lazy loading and dynamic proxies with EntityFramework. This means that even if I ToList() everything and store them somewhere static, the relationships are never populated. For example, User.Permissions is an ICollection but it's always null. I don't want to Include() everything because I'm trying to keep things simple and generic (and easy to modify). One thing I know is that an EntityFramework DbContext is a unit of work that acts with 1st-level caching. That is, for the duration of the unit of work, everything that is accessed is cached in memory. I want to create a read-only DbContext that will exist indefinitely and will only be used to read about permission data. Upon testing this it worked perfectly; my page load times went from 200ms+ to 20ms. I can easily force the data to refresh at certain intervals or simply leave it to refresh when the application pool is recycled. Basically it will behave like a cache. Note that the rest of the application will interact with other contexts that exist per request as normal. Is there any disadvantage to this approach? Could I be doing something different?

    Read the article

  • Does boost::asio makes excessive small heap allocations or am I wrong?

    - by Poni
    #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include <boost/bind.hpp> #include <boost/asio.hpp> using boost::asio::ip::tcp; class session { public: session(boost::asio::io_service& io_service) : socket_(io_service) { } tcp::socket& socket() { return socket_; } void start() { socket_.async_read_some(boost::asio::buffer(data_, max_length - 1), boost::bind(&session::handle_read, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error, boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)); } void handle_read(const boost::system::error_code& error, size_t bytes_transferred) { if (!error) { data_[bytes_transferred] = '\0'; if(NULL != strstr(data_, "quit")) { this->socket().shutdown(boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket::shutdown_both); this->socket().close(); // how to make this dispatch "handle_read()" with a "disconnected" flag? } else { boost::asio::async_write(socket_, boost::asio::buffer(data_, bytes_transferred), boost::bind(&session::handle_write, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error)); socket_.async_read_some(boost::asio::buffer(data_, max_length - 1), boost::bind(&session::handle_read, this, boost::asio::placeholders::error, boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)); } } else { delete this; } } void handle_write(const boost::system::error_code& error) { if (!error) { // } else { delete this; } } private: tcp::socket socket_; enum { max_length = 1024 }; char data_[max_length]; }; class server { public: server(boost::asio::io_service& io_service, short port) : io_service_(io_service), acceptor_(io_service, tcp::endpoint(tcp::v4(), port)) { session* new_session = new session(io_service_); acceptor_.async_accept(new_session->socket(), boost::bind(&server::handle_accept, this, new_session, boost::asio::placeholders::error)); } void handle_accept(session* new_session, const boost::system::error_code& error) { if (!error) { new_session->start(); new_session = new session(io_service_); acceptor_.async_accept(new_session->socket(), boost::bind(&server::handle_accept, this, new_session, boost::asio::placeholders::error)); } else { delete new_session; } } private: boost::asio::io_service& io_service_; tcp::acceptor acceptor_; }; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { try { if (argc != 2) { std::cerr << "Usage: async_tcp_echo_server <port>\n"; return 1; } boost::asio::io_service io_service; using namespace std; // For atoi. server s(io_service, atoi(argv[1])); io_service.run(); } catch (std::exception& e) { std::cerr << "Exception: " << e.what() << "\n"; } return 0; } While experimenting with boost::asio I've noticed that within the calls to async_write()/async_read_some() there is a usage of the C++ "new" keyword. Also, when stressing this echo server with a client (1 connection) that sends for example 100,000 times some data, the memory usage of this program is getting higher and higher. What's going on? Will it allocate memory for every call? Or am I wrong? Asking because it doesn't seem right that a server app will allocate, anything. Can I handle it, say with a memory pool? Another side-question: See the "this-socket().close();" ? I want it, as the comment right to it says, to dispatch that same function one last time, with a disconnection error. Need that to do some clean-up. How do I do that? Thank you all gurus (:

    Read the article

  • Boost::binary<> [c++][Boost]

    - by atch
    Hi, Is there anything in boost libraries like binary? For example I would like to write: binary<10101> a; I'm ashamed to admit that I've tried to find it (Google, Boost) but no results. They're mention something about binary_int< but I couldn't find neither if it is available nor what header file shall I include; Thanks for help.

    Read the article

  • Should adapters or wrappers be unit tested?

    - by m3th0dman
    Suppose that I have a class that implements some logic: public MyLogicImpl implements MyLogic { public void myLogicMethod() { //my logic here } } and somewhere else a test class: public MyLogicImplTest { @Test public void testMyLogicMethod() { /test my logic } } I also have: @WebService public MyWebServices class { @Inject private MyLogic myLogic; @WebMethod public void myLogicWebMethod() { myLogic.myLogicMethod(); } } Should there be a test unit for myLogicWebMethod or should the testing for it be handled in integration testing.

    Read the article

  • Unit-testing code that relies on untestable 3rd party code

    - by DudeOnRock
    Sometimes, especially when working with third party code, I write unit-test specific code in my production code. This happens when third party code uses singletons, relies on constants, accesses the file-system/a resource I don't want to access in a test situation, or overuses inheritance. The form my unit-test specific code takes is usually the following: if (accessing or importing a certain resource fails) I assume this is a test case and load a mock object Is this poor form, and if it is, what is normally done when writing tests for code that uses untestable third party code?

    Read the article

  • Boost program will not working on Linux

    - by Martin Lauridsen
    Hi SOF, I have this program which uses Boost::Asio for sockets. I pretty much altered some code from the Boost examples. The program compiles and runs just like it should on Windows in VS. However, when I compile the program on Linux and run it, I get a Segmentation fault. I posted the code here The command I use to compile it is this: c++ -I/appl/htopopt/Linux_x86_64/NTL-5.4.2/include -I/appl/htopopt/Linux_x86_64/boost_1_43_0/include mpqs.cpp mpqs_polynomial.cpp mpqs_host.cpp -o mpqs_host -L/appl/htopopt/Linux_x86_64/NTL-5.4.2/lib -lntl -L/appl/htopopt/Linux_x86_64/gmp-4.2.1/lib -lgmp -lm -L/appl/htopopt/Linux_x86_64/boost_1_43_0/lib -lboost_system -lboost_thread -static -lpthread By commenting out code, I have found out that I get the Segmentation fault due to the following line: boost::asio::io_service io_service; Can anyone provide any assistance, as to what may be the problem (and the solution)? Thanks! Edit: I tried changing the program to a minimal example, using no other libraries or headers, just boost/asio.hpp: #define DEBUG 0 #include <boost/asio.hpp> int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { boost::asio::io_service io_service; return 0; } I also removed other library inclusions and linking on compilation, however this minimal example still gives me a segmentation fault.

    Read the article

  • LibPNG + Boost::GIL: png_infopp_NULL not found

    - by Viet
    Hi, I always get this error when trying to compile my file with Boost::GIL PNG IO support: (I'm running Mac OS X Leopard and Boost 1.42, LibPNG 1.4) /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp: In member function 'void boost::gil::detail::png_reader::init()': /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp:155: error: 'png_infopp_NULL' was not declared in this scope /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp:160: error: 'png_infopp_NULL' was not declared in this scope /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp: In destructor 'boost::gil::detail::png_reader::~png_reader()': /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp:174: error: 'png_infopp_NULL' was not declared in this scope /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp: In member function 'void boost::gil::detail::png_reader::apply(const View&)': /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp:186: error: 'int_p_NULL' was not declared in this scope /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp: In member function 'void boost::gil::detail::png_reader_color_convert<CC>::apply(const View&)': /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp:228: error: 'int_p_NULL' was not declared in this scope /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp: In member function 'void boost::gil::detail::png_writer::init()': /usr/local/include/boost/gil/extension/io/png_io_private.hpp:317: error: 'png_infopp_NULL' was not declared in this scope

    Read the article

  • Why boost::recursive_mutex is not working as expected?

    - by Kjir
    I have a custom class that uses boost mutexes and locks like this (only relevant parts): template<class T> class FFTBuf { public: FFTBuf(); [...] void lock(); void unlock(); private: T *_dst; int _siglen; int _processed_sums; int _expected_sums; int _assigned_sources; bool _written; boost::recursive_mutex _mut; boost::unique_lock<boost::recursive_mutex> _lock; }; template<class T> FFTBuf<T>::FFTBuf() : _dst(NULL), _siglen(0), _expected_sums(1), _processed_sums(0), _assigned_sources(0), _written(false), _lock(_mut, boost::defer_lock_t()) { } template<class T> void FFTBuf<T>::lock() { std::cerr << "Locking" << std::endl; _lock.lock(); std::cerr << "Locked" << std::endl; } template<class T> void FFTBuf<T>::unlock() { std::cerr << "Unlocking" << std::endl; _lock.unlock(); } If I try to lock more than once the object from the same thread, I get an exception (lock_error): #include "fft_buf.hpp" int main( void ) { FFTBuf<int> b( 256 ); b.lock(); b.lock(); b.unlock(); b.unlock(); return 0; } This is the output: sb@dex $ ./src/test Locking Locked Locking terminate called after throwing an instance of 'boost::lock_error' what(): boost::lock_error zsh: abort ./src/test Why is this happening? Am I understanding some concept incorrectly?

    Read the article

  • Is your test method self-validating ?

    - by mehfuzh
    Writing state of art unit tests that can validate your every part of the framework is challenging and interesting at the same time, its like becoming a samurai. One of the key concept in this is to keep our test synced all the time as underlying code changes and thus breaking them to the furthest unit as possible.  This also means, we should avoid  multiple conditions embedded in a single test. Let’s consider the following example of transfer funds. [Fact] public void ShouldAssertTranserFunds() {     var currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>();     //// current rate     Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("AUS", "CAD")).Returns(0.88f);       Account to = new Account { Currency = "AUS", Balance = 120 };     Account from = new Account { Currency = "CAD" };       AccountService accService = new AccountService(currencyService);       Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(() => accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 200f));       accService.TranferFunds(to, from, 100f);       Assert.Equal(from.Balance, 88);     Assert.Equal(20, to.Balance); } At first look,  it seems ok but as you look more closely , it is actually doing two tasks in one test. At line# 10 it is trying to validate the exception for invalid fund transfer and finally it is asserting if the currency conversion is successfully made. Here, the name of the test itself is pretty vague. The first rule for writing unit test should always reflect to inner working of the target code, where just by looking at their names it is self explanatory. Having a obscure name for a test method not only increase the chances of cluttering the test code, but it also gives the opportunity to add multiple paths into it and eventually makes things messy as possible. I would rater have two test methods that explicitly describes its intent and are more self-validating. ShouldThrowExceptionForInvalidTransferOperation ShouldAssertTransferForExpectedConversionRate Having, this type of breakdown also helps us pin-point reported bugs easily rather wasting any time on debugging for something more general and can minimize confusion among team members. Finally, we should always make our test F.I.R.S.T ( Fast.Independent.Repeatable.Self-validating.Timely) [ Bob martin – Clean Code]. Only this will be enough to ensure, our test is as simple and clean as possible.   Hope that helps

    Read the article

  • In rails, what defines unit testing as opposed to other kinds of testing

    - by junky
    Initially I thought this was simple: unit testing for models with other testing such as integration for controller and browser testing for views. But more recently I've seen a lot of references to unit testing that doesn't seem to exactly follow this format. Is it possible to have a unit test of a controller? Does that mean that just one method is called? What's the distinction? What does unit testing really means in my rails world?

    Read the article

  • Whitepaper list for the application framework

    - by Rick Finley
    We're reposting the list of technical whitepapers for the Oracle ETPM framework (called OUAF, Oracle Utilities Application Framework).  These are are available from My Oracle Support at the Doc Id's mentioned below. Some have been updated in the last few months to reflect new advice and new features.  This is reposted from the OUAF blog:  http://blogs.oracle.com/theshortenspot/entry/whitepaper_list_as_at_november Doc Id Document Title Contents 559880.1 ConfigLab Design Guidelines This whitepaper outlines how to design and implement a data management solution using the ConfigLab facility. This whitepaper currently only applies to the following products: Oracle Utilities Customer Care And Billing Oracle Enterprise Taxation Management Oracle Enterprise Taxation and Policy Management           560367.1 Technical Best Practices for Oracle Utilities Application Framework Based Products Whitepaper summarizing common technical best practices used by partners, implementation teams and customers. 560382.1 Performance Troubleshooting Guideline Series A set of whitepapers on tracking performance at each tier in the framework. The individual whitepapers are as follows: Concepts - General Concepts and Performance Troublehooting processes Client Troubleshooting - General troubleshooting of the browser client with common issues and resolutions. Network Troubleshooting - General troubleshooting of the network with common issues and resolutions. Web Application Server Troubleshooting - General troubleshooting of the Web Application Server with common issues and resolutions. Server Troubleshooting - General troubleshooting of the Operating system with common issues and resolutions. Database Troubleshooting - General troubleshooting of the database with common issues and resolutions. Batch Troubleshooting - General troubleshooting of the background processing component of the product with common issues and resolutions. 560401.1 Software Configuration Management Series  A set of whitepapers on how to manage customization (code and data) using the tools provided with the framework. The individual whitepapers are as follows: Concepts - General concepts and introduction. Environment Management - Principles and techniques for creating and managing environments. Version Management - Integration of Version control and version management of configuration items. Release Management - Packaging configuration items into a release. Distribution - Distribution and installation of releases across environments Change Management - Generic change management processes for product implementations. Status Accounting - Status reporting techniques using product facilities. Defect Management - Generic defect management processes for product implementations. Implementing Single Fixes - Discussion on the single fix architecture and how to use it in an implementation. Implementing Service Packs - Discussion on the service packs and how to use them in an implementation. Implementing Upgrades - Discussion on the the upgrade process and common techniques for minimizing the impact of upgrades. 773473.1 Oracle Utilities Application Framework Security Overview A whitepaper summarizing the security facilities in the framework. Now includes references to other Oracle security products supported. 774783.1 LDAP Integration for Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products Updated! A generic whitepaper summarizing how to integrate an external LDAP based security repository with the framework. 789060.1 Oracle Utilities Application Framework Integration Overview A whitepaper summarizing all the various common integration techniques used with the product (with case studies). 799912.1 Single Sign On Integration for Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products A whitepaper outlining a generic process for integrating an SSO product with the framework. 807068.1 Oracle Utilities Application Framework Architecture Guidelines This whitepaper outlines the different variations of architecture that can be considered. Each variation will include advice on configuration and other considerations. 836362.1 Batch Best Practices for Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products This whitepaper outlines the common and best practices implemented by sites all over the world. 856854.1 Technical Best Practices V1 Addendum Addendum to Technical Best Practices for Oracle Utilities Customer Care And Billing V1.x only. 942074.1 XAI Best Practices This whitepaper outlines the common integration tasks and best practices for the Web Services Integration provided by the Oracle Utilities Application Framework. 970785.1 Oracle Identity Manager Integration Overview This whitepaper outlines the principals of the prebuilt intergration between Oracle Utilities Application Framework Based Products and Oracle Identity Manager used to provision user and user group security information. For Fw4.x customers use whitepaper 1375600.1 instead. 1068958.1 Production Environment Configuration Guidelines A whitepaper outlining common production level settings for the products based upon benchmarks and customer feedback. 1177265.1 What's New In Oracle Utilities Application Framework V4? Whitepaper outlining the major changes to the framework since Oracle Utilities Application Framework V2.2. 1290700.1 Database Vault Integration Whitepaper outlining the Database Vault Integration solution provided with Oracle Utilities Application Framework V4.1.0 and above. 1299732.1 BI Publisher Guidelines for Oracle Utilities Application Framework Whitepaper outlining the interface between BI Publisher and the Oracle Utilities Application Framework 1308161.1 Oracle SOA Suite Integration with Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products This whitepaper outlines common design patterns and guidelines for using Oracle SOA Suite with Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products. 1308165.1 MPL Best Practices Oracle Utilities Application Framework This is a guidelines whitepaper for products shipping with the Multi-Purpose Listener. This whitepaper currently only applies to the following products: Oracle Utilities Customer Care And Billing Oracle Enterprise Taxation Management Oracle Enterprise Taxation and Policy Management 1308181.1 Oracle WebLogic JMS Integration with the Oracle Utilities Application Framework This whitepaper covers the native integration between Oracle WebLogic JMS with Oracle Utilities Application Framework using the new Message Driven Bean functionality and real time JMS adapters. 1334558.1 Oracle WebLogic Clustering for Oracle Utilities Application Framework New! This whitepaper covers process for implementing clustering using Oracle WebLogic for Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products. 1359369.1 IBM WebSphere Clustering for Oracle Utilities Application Framework New! This whitepaper covers process for implementing clustering using IBM WebSphere for Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products 1375600.1 Oracle Identity Management Suite Integration with the Oracle Utilities Application Framework New! This whitepaper covers the integration between Oracle Utilities Application Framework and Oracle Identity Management Suite components such as Oracle Identity Manager, Oracle Access Manager, Oracle Adaptive Access Manager, Oracle Internet Directory and Oracle Virtual Directory. 1375615.1 Advanced Security for the Oracle Utilities Application Framework New! This whitepaper covers common security requirements and how to meet those requirements using Oracle Utilities Application Framework native security facilities, security provided with the J2EE Web Application and/or facilities available in Oracle Identity Management Suite.

    Read the article

  • unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

    - by kris welsh
    I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

    Read the article

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