Search Results

Search found 27917 results on 1117 pages for 'jquery methods'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 635/1117 | < Previous Page | 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642  | Next Page >

  • GWT: Best practice for unit testing / mocking JSNI methods?

    - by Epaga
    I have a class which uses JSNI to retrieve JSON data stored in the host page: protected native JsArray<JsonModel> getModels() /*-{ return $wnd.jsonData; }-*/; This method is called, and the data is then translated and process in a different method. How should I unit test this class, since I'm not able to instantiate (or seemingly mock?) JsArray? What is the best way to unit test JSNI methods at all?

    Read the article

  • i want to send 20000 messages from JMeter to JMS Queue through web methods and get/capture responses

    - by sam
    Blockquote Hi i'm trying to post JMS messages to JMS queue through web methods,JNDI. i want to post 20000 messages using one connection. i want to read the responses back once returned by wMethods. i want to capture the request & response for all 20000 messages i'm using JMeter is there any other opensource, easily usable tool available for this testing? thanks in advance. regards, Sam Blockquote

    Read the article

  • Do I need to override the writing methods of NSDocument in subclasses for an application that will o

    - by Abizern
    I think I may be missing the obvious but I'm not sure. The section on subclassing NSDocument in the docs states that subclasses of NSDocument must override one reading and one writing method. If I'm creating a viewer application that will not write anything back, do I still need to override a writing method (returning what, nil?) or can I ignore it and make sure that there are no saving methods that can get called?

    Read the article

  • Naming member functions/methods with a single underscore, good style or bad?

    - by Extrakun
    In some languages where you cannot override the () operator, I have seen methods with a single underscore, usually for 'helper' classes. Something likes this: class D10 { public function _() { return rand(1,10); } } Is it better to have the function called Roll()? Is a underscore fine? After all, there is only one function, and it removes the need to look up the name of the class. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How do I call the methods in a model via controller? Zend Framework

    - by Joel
    Hi guys, I've been searching for tutorials to better understand this, but I'm having no luck. Please forgive the lengthy explination, but I want make sure I explain myself well. First, I'm quite new to the MVC structure, though I have been doing tutorials and learning as best I can. I have been moving over a live site into the Zend Framework model. So far, I have all the views within views/scripts/index/example.phtml. So therefore I'm using one IndexController and I have the code in each Action method for each page: IE public function exampleAction() Because I didn't know how to interact with a model, I put all the methods at the bottom of the controller (a fat controller). So basically, I had a working site by using a View and Controller and no model. ... Now I'm trying to learn how to incorporate the Model. So I created a View at: view/scripts/calendar/index.phtml I created a new Controller at: controller/CalendarControllers.php and a new model at: model/Calendar.php The problem is I think I'm not correctly communication with the model (I'm still new to OOP). Can you look over my controller and model and tell me if you see a problem. I'm needing to return an array from runCalendarScript(), but I'm not sure if I can return an array into the object like I'm trying to? I don't really understand how to "run" the runCalendarScript() from the controller? Thanks for any help! I'm stripping out most of the guts of the methods for the sake of brevity: controller: <?php class CalendarController extends Zend_Controller_Action { public function indexAction() { $finishedFeedArray = new Application_Model_Calendar(); $this->view->googleArray = $finishedFeedArray; } } model: <?php class Application_Model_Calendar { public function _runCalendarScript(){ $gcal = $this->_validateCalendarConnection(); $uncleanedFeedArray = $this->_getCalendarFeed($gcal); $finishedFeedArray = $this->_cleanFeed($uncleanedFeedArray); return $finishedFeedArray; } //Validate Google Calendar connection public function _validateCalendarConnection() { ... return $gcal; } //extracts googles calendar object into the $feed object public function _getCalendarFeed($gcal) { ... return $feed; } //cleans the feed to just text, etc protected function _cleanFeed($uncleanedFeedArray) { $contentText = $this->_cleanupText($event); $eventData = $this->_filterEventDetails($contentText); return $cleanedArray; } //Cleans up all formatting of text from Calendar feed public function _cleanupText($event) { ... return $contentText; } //filterEventDetails protected function _filterEventDetails($contentText) { ... return $data; } }

    Read the article

  • C#: why have all static methods/variables in a non-static class?

    - by Craig Johnston
    I have come across a class which is non-static, but all the methods and variables are static. Eg: public class Class1 { private static string String1 = "one"; private static string String2 = "two"; public static void PrintStrings(string str1, string str2) { ... All the variables are static across all instances, so there is no point having separate instances of the class. Is there any reason to create a class such as this?

    Read the article

  • Calling methods in super class constructor of subclass constructor?

    - by deamon
    Calling methods in super class constructor of subclass constructor? Passing configuration to the __init__ method which calls register implicitely: class Base: def __init__(self, *verbs=("get", "post")): self._register(verbs) def _register(self, *verbs): pass class Sub(Base): def __init__(self): super().__init__("get", "post", "put") Or calling register explicitely in the subclass' __init__ method: class Base: def __init__(self): self._register("get", "post") def _register(self, *verbs): pass class Sub(Base): def __init__(self): _register("get", "post", "put") What is better or more pythonic? Or is it only a matter of taste?

    Read the article

  • When mocking a class with Moq, how can I CallBase for just specific methods?

    - by Daryn
    I really appreciate Moq's Loose mocking behaviour that returns default values when no expectations are set. It's convenient and saves me code, and it also acts as a safety measure: dependencies won't get unintentionally called during the unit test (as long as they are virtual). However, I'm confused about how to keep these benefits when the method under test happens to be virtual. In this case I do want to call the real code for that one method, while still having the rest of the class loosely mocked. All I have found in my searching is that I could set mock.CallBase = true to ensure that the method gets called. However, that affects the whole class. I don't want to do that because it puts me in a dilemma about all the other properties and methods in the class that hide call dependencies: if CallBase is true then I have to either Setup stubs for all of the properties and methods that hide dependencies -- Even though my test doesn't think it needs to care about those dependencies, or Hope that I don't forget to Setup any stubs (and that no new dependencies get added to the code in the future) -- Risk unit tests hitting a real dependency. Q: With Moq, is there any way to test a virtual method, when I mocked the class to stub just a few dependencies? I.e. Without resorting to CallBase=true and having to stub all of the dependencies? Example code to illustrate (uses MSTest, InternalsVisibleTo DynamicProxyGenAssembly2) In the following example, TestNonVirtualMethod passes, but TestVirtualMethod fails - returns null. public class Foo { public string NonVirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA(); } public virtual string VirtualMethod() { return GetDependencyA();} internal virtual string GetDependencyA() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency A !"; } // [... Possibly many other dependencies ...] internal virtual string GetDependencyN() { return "! Hit REAL Dependency N !"; } } [TestClass] public class UnitTest1 { [TestMethod] public void TestNonVirtualMethod() { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); string result = mockFoo.Object.NonVirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } [TestMethod] public void TestVirtualMethod() // Fails { var mockFoo = new Mock<Foo>(); mockFoo.Setup(m => m.GetDependencyA()).Returns(expectedResultString); // (I don't want to setup GetDependencyB ... GetDependencyN here) string result = mockFoo.Object.VirtualMethod(); Assert.AreEqual(expectedResultString, result); } string expectedResultString = "Hit mock dependency A - OK"; }

    Read the article

  • Erlang: What are the pros and cons of different methods for avoiding intermediate variables?

    - by erlacher
    At one point while traveling the web, I came across a great page which contrasted the clarity and terseness of different methods of doing a sequence of operations without having to make a bunch of throwaway variables, e.g., Var1, Var2, Var3. It tried list comprehensions, folds, maps, etc. For some reason, now matter what I google, I can't find it again. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? Or want to explore the topic anyway?

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to throw NotImplemented exception in virtual methods?

    - by Axarydax
    I have a base class for some plugin-style stuff, and there are some methods that are absolutely required to be implemented. I currently declare those in the base class as virtual, for example public virtual void Save { throw new NotImplementedException(); } and in the descendand I have a public override void Save() { //do stuff } Is it a good practice to throw a NotImplementedException there? The descendand classes could for example be the modules for handling different file formats. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is there a C# equivalent of typeof for properties/methods/members?

    - by David
    A classes Type metadata can be obtained in several ways. Two of them are: var typeInfo = Type.GetType("MyClass") and var typeInfo = typeof(MyClass) The advantage of the second way is that typos will be caught by the compiler, and the IDE can understand what I'm talking about (allowing features like refactoring to work without silently breaking the code) Does there exist an equivalent way of strongly referencing members/properties/methods for metadata and reflection? Can I replace: var propertyInfo = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty("MyProperty") with something like: var propertyInfo = property(MyClass.MyProperty)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642  | Next Page >