Search Results

Search found 10978 results on 440 pages for 'collision testing'.

Page 78/440 | < Previous Page | 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85  | Next Page >

  • Is a functional spec a part of the System requirement spec?

    - by user970696
    I wonder, sources like wikipedia or templates I found shows that Functional spec is a part of System requirement documents. I always thought that SRD is just overall decsription of the system, with all functional and non functional requirements. Yet I thought that Functional spec is more detailed and it is a separate document, while SRD is high level customer-created description (how is this one called then?) Could anyone help to make this clear for me?

    Read the article

  • Is testable code actually more stable? [closed]

    - by Xodarap
    A google scholar search turns up numerous papers on testability, including models for computing testability, recommendations for how ones code can be more testable, etc. They all come with the assertion that more testable code is more stable, however I can't find any studies which actually demonstrate this. I tried looking for studies evaluating the effect of testable code vs. quality, however the closest I can find is Improving the Testability of Object Oriented Systems, which discusses the relationship between design flaws and testability. Is testable code is actually more stable? And why, or why not? Please back up your answers with references or evidence to back up your claim.

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

  • Convert project without introducing bugs

    - by didietexas
    I have the C++ code of a exe which contains a UI and some process. My goal is to remove the UI so that I only have the process and to convert the exe into a dll. In order to do that, I am thinking of generating unit test before touching any code and then to do my modification and make sure the tests are not failing. The problem is that I am not sure if this is the best approach and if it is, is there a way to automatically generate unit test. BTW, I am using VS 2012. Do you have any guidance for me?

    Read the article

  • XNA, C# - Check if a Vector2 path crosses another Vector2 path.

    - by Nick
    Hello all, I have an XNA question for those with more experience in these matters than myself (maths). Background: I have a game that implements a boundary class, this simply hosts 2 Vector2 objects, a start and an end point. The current implementation crudely handles collision detection by assuming boundaries are always vertical or horizontal, i.e. if start.x and end.x are the same check I am not trying to pass x etc. Ideally what I would like to implement is a method that accepts two Vector2 parameters. The first being a current location, the second being a requested location (where I would like to move it to assuming no objections). The method would also accept a boundary object. What the method should then do is tell me if I am going to cross the boundry in this move. this could be a bool or ideally something representing how far I can actually move. This empty method might explain better than I can in words. /// <summary> /// Checks the move. /// </summary> /// <param name="current">The current.</param> /// <param name="requested">The requested.</param> /// <param name="boundry">The boundry.</param> /// <returns></returns> public bool CheckMove(Vector2 current, Vector2 requested, Boundry boundry) { //return a bool that indicated if the suggested move will cross the boundry. return true; }

    Read the article

  • How do you test your porn filter

    - by Zoredache
    For testing antivirus we have EICAR, for SPAM, we have GTUBE. Is there a standard site that is or should be included in blacklists that you can use for testing instead of going to your favorite porn site in front of your boss, the CEO, or someone else who feels that seeing such a site is an excuse for a sexual harassment suit? Update This is less about getting permission for me to test, though that answer is useful. I do have both permission and responsibility to actually make sure the filter is running. I am able test the filter is functioning with a netcat. Instead, I am hoping there is a standard domain name that is blocked by most/all filters for testing. I need to be able to share this with my boss and users. I need to be able to demonstrate what happens when someone go to a filtered page. I need to have a way to quickly prove to others that the filter is working without asking them to go to some site that will not cause grief if for some reason the filter is not working. If there isn't already a good domain for this purpose I may simply have to register a domain myself, and then add the domain to all the filters I am responsible for.

    Read the article

  • Selenium Grid with parallel testing using C#/NUnit

    - by seth
    I've got several unit tests written with NUnit that are calling selenium commands. I've got 2 win2k3 server boxes setup, one is running selenium grid hub along with 2 selenium rc's. The other box is running 5 selenium rc's. All of them are registered with the hub as running Firefox on Windows (to keep it simple). In my unit test setup method I've got it connected to the hub's hostname at port 4444. When running the tests, they only run sequentially (as expected). I've done a lot of reading on NUnit's roadmap and how they are shooting for parallel testing abilities. I've seen lots of pointers to using PNUnit in the meantime. However this seems to completely defeat the purpose of the Selenium Grid. Have any of you successfully implemented parallel testing using C#/NUnit connected to a Selenium Grid setup? If so, please elaborate. I'm at a complete loss at how this will/can work using NUnit as it exists now (I'm using version 2.9.3)

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc controller actions testing

    - by Imran
    I was just wondering how others are going about testing controller actions in asp.net mvc? Most of my dependencies are injected in to my controllers so there is a not a huge amount of logic in the action methods but there may be some conditional logic for example which I think is unavoidable. In the past I have written tests for these action methods, mocked the dependencies and tested the results. I have found this is very brittle and a real PITA to maintain. Having 'Expect' and 'Stub' methods everywhere breaks very easily but I don't see any other way of testing controller actions. I actually think it might be easier to test some of these manually! Anyone have any suggestions? Perhaps I am missing something here? Thanks Imran

    Read the article

  • CUDA: How to reuse kernels in multiple files (for unit testing)

    - by zenna
    How can I go about reusing the same kernel without getting fatal linking errors due to defining the symbol multiple times In Visual Studio I get "fatal error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found" My current structure is as follows: Interface.h has an extern interface to a C function: myCfunction() (ala the C++ integration SDK example) Kernel.cu contains the actual __global__ kernels and is NOT included in the build: __global__ my_kernel() Wrapper.cu inlcudes Kernel.cu and Interface.h and calls my_kernel<<<...>>> This all works fine. But if I add another C function in another file which also includes Kernel.cu and uses those kernels, I get the errors. So how can I reuse the kernels in Kernel.cu among many C functions in different files. The purpose of this by the way is unit testing, and integrating my kernels with CPP unit, if there is no way to reuse kernels (there must be!) then other suggestions for unit testing kernels within my existing CPP unit framework would be appreciate. Thanks Zenna

    Read the article

  • Increase efficiency of a loop with jQuery

    - by Pez Cuckow
    I have a game coded in jQuery where bots are moved around the screen. The below code is a loop that runs every 20ms, currently if you have over 15 bots you start to notice the browser lagging (simply because of all the advanced collision detection going on). Is there any way to reduce the lag, can I make it any more efficient? P.s. sorrry for just posting a block of code, I can't see a way to make my point clear enough without! $.playground().registerCallback(function(){ //Movement Loop if(!pause) { for (var i in bots) { //bots - color, dir, x, y, z, spawned?, spawnerid, prevd var self = $('#b' + i); var current = bots[i]; if(bots[i][5]==1) { var xspeed = 0, yspeed = 0; if(current[1]==0) { yspeed = -D_SPEED; } else if(current[1]==1) { xspeed = D_SPEED; } else if(current[1]==2) { yspeed = D_SPEED; } else if(current[1]==3) { xspeed = -D_SPEED; } var x = current[2] + xspeed; var y = current[3] + yspeed; var z = current[3] + 120; if(current[2]>0&&x>PLAYGROUND_WIDTH||current[2]<0&&x<-GRID_SIZE|| current[3]>0&&y>PLAYGROUND_HEIGHT||current[3]<0&&y<-GRID_SIZE) { remove_bot(i, self); } else { if(current[7]!=current[1]) { self.setAnimation(colors[current[0]][current[1]]); bots[i][7] = current[1]; } if(self.css({"left": ""+(x)+"px", "top": ""+(y)+"px", "z-index": z})) { bots[i][2] = x; bots[i][3] = y; bots[i][4] = z; bots[i][8]++; } } } } $("#debug").html(dump(arrows)); $(".bot").each(function(){ var b_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var collision = false; var c_bot = bots[b_id]; var b_x = c_bot[2]; var b_y = c_bot[3]; var b_d = c_bot[1]; $(this).collision(".arrow,#arrows").each(function(){ //Many thanks to Selim Arsever for this fix! var a_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = arrows[a_id]; var a_v = piece[0]; if(a_v==1) { var a_x = piece[2]; var a_y = piece[3]; var d_x = b_x-a_x; var d_y = b_y-a_y; if(d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=1&&d_y<=2) { //bots - color, dir, x, y, z, spawned?, spawnerid, prevd bots[b_id][7] = c_bot[1]; bots[b_id][1] = piece[1]; collision = true; } } }); if(!collision) { $(this).collision(".wall,#level").each(function(){ var w_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = pieces[w_id]; var w_x = piece[1]; var w_y = piece[2]; d_x = b_x-w_x; d_y = b_y-w_y; if(b_d==0&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=27&&d_y<=28) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // 33 if(b_d==1&&d_x>=-12&&d_x<=-11&&d_y>=21&&d_y<=22) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //-14 // 21 if(b_d==2&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=-9&&d_y<=-8) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // -9 if(b_d==3&&d_x>=22&&d_x<=23&&d_y>=20&&d_y<=21) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //22 // 21 }); } if(!collision&&c_bot[8]>GRID_MOVE) { $(this).collision(".spawn,#level").each(function(){ var s_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = pieces[s_id]; var s_x = piece[1]; var s_y = piece[2]; d_x = b_x-s_x; d_y = b_y-s_y; if(b_d==0&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=19&&d_y<=20) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // 33 if(b_d==1&&d_x>=-14&&d_x<=-13&&d_y>=11&&d_y<=12) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //-14 // 21 if(b_d==2&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=-11&&d_y<=-10) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // -9 if(b_d==3&&d_x>=22&&d_x<=23&&d_y>=11&&d_y<=12) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //22 // 21*/ }); } if(!collision) { $(this).collision(".exit,#level").each(function(){ var e_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = pieces[e_id]; var e_x = piece[1]; var e_y = piece[2]; d_x = b_x-e_x; d_y = b_y-e_y; if(d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=1&&d_y<=2) { current_bots++; bots[b_id] = false; $("#current_bots").html(current_bots); $("#b" + b_id).setAnimation(exit[2], function(node){$(node).fadeOut(200)}); } }); } if(!collision) { $(this).collision(".bot,#level").each(function(){ var bd_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); if(bd_id!=b_id) { var piece = bots[bd_id]; var bd_x = piece[2]; var bd_y = piece[3]; d_x = b_x-bd_x; d_y = b_y-bd_y; if(d_x>=0&&d_x<=2&&d_y>=0&&d_y<=2) { kill_bot(b_id); kill_bot(bd_id); collision = true; } } }); } }); } }, REFRESH_RATE); Many thanks,

    Read the article

  • iphone - testing if an object exists

    - by Mike
    I have several apps in my app that can become nil at some point and I have methods that in theory are used to put these objects to nil. But, if I try to put to nil an object that does not exist, the app will crash. for example... [object1 release]; object1 = nil; //... and after that [object removeFromSuperview]; // this will crash Then I thought, why not testing to see if the object exists before removing... if (object1 != nil) [object removeFromSuperview]; // this will crash too, because object1 cannot be tested for nil because it does not exist How can I check if the object exists before testing if it is nil? something as if (object exists( { if(object != nil)) [object removeFromSuperview) } is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Should I unit test the model returned by DefaultModelBinder?

    - by Byron Sommardahl
    I'm having some trouble unit testing the model returned by DefaultModelBinder. I want to feed in a fake form collection and check the model that it returns to make sure model properties are being bound properly. In my research, I'm not turning up -any- resources on testing the DefaultModelBinder. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I shouldn't be testing this part of MVC? Your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Testing Django web app with Hudson and Selenium

    - by ycseattle
    This might be a newbie question for Hudson. I am trying to setup Selenium testing for my Django website in my Hudson CI server. The question is, the Hudson will use subversion to checkout my Django code into its own path, how do I "deploy" the code into the same server for testing? This is not a question about deploying django, but instead how to access the source file in hudson workspace. Most tutorials/blogs is about building and running tests, but I couldn't find useful information about how to setup the web application on the server to run the test against. 1) Should I write some shell script to copy the source files from the hudson workspace? Is there an environment variable to use to access the workspace? 2) Is there a tutorial on how to grab web app files in hudson workspace and deploy them? I am sure this apply for other technologies like PHP as well. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Increase efficiency of a loop with jQuery and GameQuery

    - by Pez Cuckow
    I have a game coded in jQuery where bots are moved around the screen. The below code is a loop that runs every 20ms, currently if you have over 15 bots you start to notice the browser lagging (simply because of all the advanced collision detection going on). Is there any way to reduce the lag, can I make it any more efficient? P.s. sorrry for just posting a block of code, I can't see a way to make my point clear enough without! $.playground().registerCallback(function(){ //Movement Loop if(!pause) { for (var i in bots) { //bots - color, dir, x, y, z, spawned?, spawnerid, prevd var self = $('#b' + i); var current = bots[i]; if(bots[i][5]==1) { var xspeed = 0, yspeed = 0; if(current[1]==0) { yspeed = -D_SPEED; } else if(current[1]==1) { xspeed = D_SPEED; } else if(current[1]==2) { yspeed = D_SPEED; } else if(current[1]==3) { xspeed = -D_SPEED; } var x = current[2] + xspeed; var y = current[3] + yspeed; var z = current[3] + 120; if(current[2]>0&&x>PLAYGROUND_WIDTH||current[2]<0&&x<-GRID_SIZE|| current[3]>0&&y>PLAYGROUND_HEIGHT||current[3]<0&&y<-GRID_SIZE) { remove_bot(i, self); } else { if(current[7]!=current[1]) { self.setAnimation(colors[current[0]][current[1]]); bots[i][7] = current[1]; } if(self.css({"left": ""+(x)+"px", "top": ""+(y)+"px", "z-index": z})) { bots[i][2] = x; bots[i][3] = y; bots[i][4] = z; bots[i][8]++; } } } } $("#debug").html(dump(arrows)); $(".bot").each(function(){ var b_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var collision = false; var c_bot = bots[b_id]; var b_x = c_bot[2]; var b_y = c_bot[3]; var b_d = c_bot[1]; $(this).collision(".arrow,#arrows").each(function(){ //Many thanks to Selim Arsever for this fix! var a_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = arrows[a_id]; var a_v = piece[0]; if(a_v==1) { var a_x = piece[2]; var a_y = piece[3]; var d_x = b_x-a_x; var d_y = b_y-a_y; if(d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=1&&d_y<=2) { //bots - color, dir, x, y, z, spawned?, spawnerid, prevd bots[b_id][7] = c_bot[1]; bots[b_id][1] = piece[1]; collision = true; } } }); if(!collision) { $(this).collision(".wall,#level").each(function(){ var w_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = pieces[w_id]; var w_x = piece[1]; var w_y = piece[2]; d_x = b_x-w_x; d_y = b_y-w_y; if(b_d==0&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=27&&d_y<=28) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // 33 if(b_d==1&&d_x>=-12&&d_x<=-11&&d_y>=21&&d_y<=22) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //-14 // 21 if(b_d==2&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=-9&&d_y<=-8) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // -9 if(b_d==3&&d_x>=22&&d_x<=23&&d_y>=20&&d_y<=21) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //22 // 21 }); } if(!collision&&c_bot[8]>GRID_MOVE) { $(this).collision(".spawn,#level").each(function(){ var s_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = pieces[s_id]; var s_x = piece[1]; var s_y = piece[2]; d_x = b_x-s_x; d_y = b_y-s_y; if(b_d==0&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=19&&d_y<=20) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // 33 if(b_d==1&&d_x>=-14&&d_x<=-13&&d_y>=11&&d_y<=12) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //-14 // 21 if(b_d==2&&d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=-11&&d_y<=-10) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //4 // -9 if(b_d==3&&d_x>=22&&d_x<=23&&d_y>=11&&d_y<=12) { kill_bot(b_id); collision = true; } //22 // 21*/ }); } if(!collision) { $(this).collision(".exit,#level").each(function(){ var e_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); var piece = pieces[e_id]; var e_x = piece[1]; var e_y = piece[2]; d_x = b_x-e_x; d_y = b_y-e_y; if(d_x>=4&&d_x<=5&&d_y>=1&&d_y<=2) { current_bots++; bots[b_id] = false; $("#current_bots").html(current_bots); $("#b" + b_id).setAnimation(exit[2], function(node){$(node).fadeOut(200)}); } }); } if(!collision) { $(this).collision(".bot,#level").each(function(){ var bd_id = $(this).attr("id").substr(1); if(bd_id!=b_id) { var piece = bots[bd_id]; var bd_x = piece[2]; var bd_y = piece[3]; d_x = b_x-bd_x; d_y = b_y-bd_y; if(d_x>=0&&d_x<=2&&d_y>=0&&d_y<=2) { kill_bot(b_id); kill_bot(bd_id); collision = true; } } }); } }); } }, REFRESH_RATE); Many thanks,

    Read the article

  • Testing perceived performance

    - by Josh Kelley
    I recently got a shiny new development workstation. The only disadvantage of this is that the desktop apps I'm developing now run very, very fast, and so I fear that parts of the code that would be annoyingly slow on end users' machines will go unnoticed during my testing. Is there a good way to slow down an application for testing? I've tried searching around, but all of the results I've been able to find seem pretty fiddly to set up (e.g., manually setting up a high-priority CPU-bound task on the same CPU core as the target app, or running a background process that rapidly interrupts and resumes the target app), and I don't know if the end result is actually a good representation of running on a slower computer (with its slower CPU, slower RAM, slower disk I/O...). I don't think that this is a job for a profiler; I'm interested in the user's perception of end-to-end performance rather than in where the time goes for particular operations.

    Read the article

  • Is this a good or bad way to use constructor chaining? (... to allow for testing).

    - by panamack
    My motivation for chaining my class constructors here is so that I have a default constructor for mainstream use by my application and a second that allows me to inject a mock and a stub. It just seems a bit ugly 'new'-ing things in the ":this(...)" call and counter-intuitive calling a parametrized constructor from a default constructor , I wondered what other people would do here? (FYI - SystemWrapper) using SystemWrapper; public class MyDirectoryWorker{ // SystemWrapper interface allows for stub of sealed .Net class. private IDirectoryInfoWrap dirInf; private FileSystemWatcher watcher; public MyDirectoryWorker() : this( new DirectoryInfoWrap(new DirectoryInfo(MyDirPath)), new FileSystemWatcher()) { } public MyDirectoryWorker(IDirectoryInfoWrap dirInf, FileSystemWatcher watcher) { this.dirInf = dirInf; if(!dirInf.Exists){ dirInf.Create(); } this.watcher = watcher; watcher.Path = dirInf.FullName; watcher.NotifyFilter = NotifyFilters.FileName; watcher.Created += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Created); watcher.Deleted += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Deleted); watcher.Renamed += new RenamedEventHandler(watcher_Renamed); watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true; } public static string MyDirPath{get{return Settings.Default.MyDefaultDirPath;}} // etc... }

    Read the article

  • Is a class that is hard to unit test badly designed?

    - by Extrakun
    I am now doing unit testing on an application which was written over the year, before I started to do unit-testing diligently. I realized that the classes I wrote are hard to unit test, for the following reasons: Relies on loading data from database. Which means I have to setup a row in the table just to run the unit test (and I am not testing database capabilities). Requires a lot of other external classes just to get the class I am testing to its initial state. On the whole, there don't seem to be anything wrong with the design except that it is too tightly coupled (which by itself is a bad thing). I figure that if I have written automated test cases with each of the class, hence ensuring that I don't heap extra dependencies or coupling for the class to work, the class might be better designed. Does this reason holds water? What are your experiences?

    Read the article

  • Devising a test strategy

    - by Simon Callan
    As part of a new job, I have to devise and implement a complete test strategy for the companies new product. So far, all I really know about it is that it is written in C++, uses an SQL database and has a web API which is used by a browser client written using GWT. As far as I know, there isn't much of an existing strategy, except for using Python scripts to test the web API. I need to develop and implement a suitable strategy for unit, system, regression and release testing, preferably a fully automated one. I'm looking for good references for : Devising the complete test strategy. Testing the web API. Testing the GWT based application. Unit testing C++ code. In addition, any suitable tools would be appreciate

    Read the article

  • Any homologue of InternalsVisibleToAttribute, but for internal classes?

    - by Will Marcouiller
    In my most recent question: Unit Testing Best Practice? / C# InternalsVisibleTo() attribute for VBNET 2.0 while testing?, I was asking about InternalsVisibleToAttribute. I have read the documentation on how to use it, and everything is fine and understood. However, I can't instantiate my class Groupe from my Testing project. I want to be able to instantiate my internal class in my wrapper assembly, from my testing assembly. Any help is appreciated! EDIT Here's the compile-time error I get when I do try to instantiate my type: Erreur 2 'Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Groupe' n'est pas accessible dans ce contexte, car il est 'Private'. C:\Open\Projects\Exemples\Src\Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory\Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests\GroupeTests.vb 9 18 Carra.Exemples.Blocs.ActiveDirectory.Tests (This says that my type is not accessible in this context, because it is private.) But it's Friend (internal)!

    Read the article

  • iPhone CSS and Display Testing

    - by Philip Arthur Moore
    Hi All. I recently coded and launched a website that displays consistently across Chrome, Firefox, Opera, IE8, IE7, and Safari. According to site visitors, though, the signup forms at the top and bottom of the site are mangled on the iPhone. I do not own an iPhone and I rarely test sites on the iPhone, and I would really hate to purchase it or an iPod Touch for the sake of occasional CSS/display testing. Question: is there a site online or a program I can use (I'm on Windows 7) for iPhone testing? An alternative question might be why the signup forms aren't displaying properly on the iPhone, when they look fine in all other browsers and a few other mobile devices that I've used? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to set up a load/stress test for a web site?

    - by Ryan
    I've been tasked with stress/load testing our company web site out of the blue and know nothing about doing so. Every search I make on google for "how to load test a web site" just comes back with various companies and software to physically do the load testing. For now I'm more interested in how to actually go about setting up a load test like what I should take into account prior to load testing, what pages within my site I should be testing load against and what things I'm going to want to monitor when doing the test. Our web site is on a multi-tier system complete with a separate database server (IIS 7 Web Server, SQL Server 2000 db). I imagine I'd want to monitor both the web server and the database server for testing load however when setting up scenarios to load test the web server I'd have to use pages that query the database to see any load on the database server at the same time. Are web servers and database servers generally tested simultaneously or are they done as separate tests? As you can see I'm pretty clueless as to the whole operation so any incite as to how to go about this would be very helpful. FYI I have been tinkering with Pylot and was able to create and run a scenario against our site but I'm not sure what I should be looking for in the results or if the scenario I created is even a scenario worth measuring for our site. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • question about learning TDD

    - by Gandalf StormCrow
    what are the best books to learn about junit, jmock and testing generally? Currently I'm reading pragmatic unit testing in Java, I'm on chapter 6 its good but it gets complicated.. is there a book for a bottom up? from your expirience which helped you get the testing concept

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85  | Next Page >