Search Results

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

Page 115/1711 | < Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >

• If you had two projects with the same specification and only one was developed using TDD how could you tell?

  - by Andrew

  I was asked this question in an interview and it has been bugging me ever since. You have two projects, both with the same specification but only one of these projects was developed using Test Driven Development. You are given the source for both but with the tests removed from the TDD project. How can you tell which was developed using TDD? All I was able to muster up was something about the classes being more 'broken up' in to smaller chunks and having more visible APIs, not my proudest moment. I would be very interested to hear a good answer to this question.

  Read the article

• What are the processes of true Quality assurance?

  - by user970696

  Having read that Quality Assurance (QA) is focused on processes (while Quality Control (QC) is focused on the product), the books often mentions QA is the verification process - doing peer reviews, inspections etc. I still tend to think these are also QC as they check intermediate products. Elsewhere I have read that QA activity is e.g. choosing the right bugtracker. That sounds better to me in terms of process improvement. The question that close-voting person obviously missed is pretty clear: What are the activities that true QA should perform? I would appreciate the reference as I work on my thesis dealing with all these discrepancies and inconsistencies in the software quality world.

  Read the article

• Inheritance vs containment while extending a large legacy project

  - by Flot2011

  I have got a legacy Java project with a lot of code. The code uses MVC pattern and is well structured and well written. It also has a lot of unit tests and it is still actively maintained (bug fixing, minor features adding). Therefore I want to preserve the original structure and code style as much as possible. The new feature I am going to add is a conceptual one, so I have to make my changes all over the code. In order to minimize changes I decided not to extend existing classes but to use containment: class ExistingClass { // .... existing code // my code adding new functionality private ExistingClassExtension extension = new ExistingClassExtension(); public ExistingClassExtension getExtension() {return extension;} } ... // somewhere in code ExistingClass instance = new ExistingClass(); ... // when I need a new functionality instance.getExtension().newMethod1(); All functionality that I am adding is inside a new ExistingClassExtension class. Actually I am adding only these 2 lines to each class that needs to be extended. By doing so I also do not need to instantiate new, extended classes all over the code and I may use existing tests to make sure there is no regression. However my colleagues argue that in this situation doing so isn't a proper OOP approach, and I need to inherit from ExistingClass in order to add a new functionality. What do you think? I am aware of numerous inheritance/containment questions here, but I think my question is different.

  Read the article

• Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

  - by Mik378

  I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

  Read the article

• Should I use structure from a core library graphic toolkit in my domain?

  - by Laurent Bourgault-Roy

  In java (and many other programming language), there are often structure to deal with graphic element : Colour, Shape, etc. Those are most often in a UI toolkit and thus have a relatively strong coupling with UI element. Now, in the domain of my application, we often deal with colour, shape, etc, to display statistic information on an element. Right now all we do with it is display/save those element with little or no behaviour. Would it make sense to avoid "reinventing the wheel" and directly use the structures in java.awt.* or should I make my own element and avoid a coupling to this toolkit? Its not like those element are going away anytime soon (they are part of the core java library after all), but at the same time it feel weird to import java.awt.* server side. I have no problem using java.util.List everywhere. Should I feel different about those class? What would be the "recommended" practice in that case?

  Read the article

• Are unit tests really used as documentation?

  - by stijn

  I cannot count the number of times I read statements in the vein of 'unit tests are a very important source of documentation of the code under test'. I do not deny they are true. But personally I haven't found myself using them as documentation, ever. For the typical frameworks I use, the method declarations document their behaviour and that's all I need. And I assume the unit tests backup everything stated in that documentation, plus likely some more internal stuff, so on one side it duplicates the ducumentation while on the other it might add some more that is irrelevant. So the question is: when are unit tests used as documentation? When the comments do not cover everything? By developpers extending the source? And what do they expose that can be useful and relevant that the documentation itself cannot expose?

  Read the article

• ISTQB terminology question (Defect)

  - by user970696

  According to ISTQB (and few more sources + wiki ), a defect/bug is the actual cause of error in software, e.g. incorrect statement, logical or semantic error. The actual definion is: a flaw in the system or component that could lead to the failure. But what about specification bugs? I cannot relate to it. Specification bugs are quite common but if the programmer implements software according to spec with a bug, it is not his fault (IMHO). But then the definion could not apply and I am sure it must have been addressed somehow. Could you help me to understand this?

  Read the article

• How is software used in critical life-or-death systems tested?

  - by waiwai933

  An airplane, as opposed to, for example, a website, is a system where any failure in certain systems is completely unacceptable, since errors in e.g. flight monitoring can cause the autopilot to malfunction and do a dive. Obviously, this doesn't happen since the brilliant engineers at Boeing and Airbus have checks in the autopilot to make sure it doesn't suddenly decide a dive is a perfectly acceptable and safe maneuver. Or perhaps the computer crashes, and the pilots in the newer fly-by-wire aircraft can no longer actually fly the plane. Of course, there are various safety procedures and redundancies built into these systems to prevent a crash (of both the software and the aircraft). However, on the other hand, it's quite obvious that software isn't perfect—both open source and closed source software do crash regularly, and only the simplest "Hello World" program doesn't fail. How can the engineers who design the software systems in the aeronautic, medical, and other life-or-death industries manage to test their software so that it doesn't fail (and if it does fail, at least fail gracefully)? I'm desperately hoping that you're not all going to go: "Oh, I work for Boeing/Airbus/(some other company) and it's not! Have fun on your next flight/hospital visit."

  Read the article

• Test driven development - convince me!

  - by Casebash

  I know some people are massive proponents of test driven development. I have used unit tests in the past, but only to test operations that can be tested easily or which I believe will quite possibly be correct. Complete or near complete code coverage sounds like it would take a lot of time. What projects do you use test-driven development for? Do you only use it for projects above a certain size? Should I be using it or not? Convince me!

  Read the article

• NUnit SetUp and TearDown

  - by Lijo

  I have some experience in MS Test but new to NUnit. Whether NUnit [Setup] is corresponding to [ClassInitialize] or [TestInitialize] in MS Test? What is the NUnit attribute corresponding to [TestInitialize]? REFERENCE: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1873191/testinitialize-gets-fired-for-every-test-in-my-visual-studio-unit-tests http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4602288/nunit-testcontext-currentcontext-test-not-working

  Read the article

• What is an acceptable level of FPS in browser workslow editor?

  - by Theo Walcott

  I'm developing a diagraming tool and need some metrics to test it against. Unfortunately I couldn't find information regarding an average acceptable FPS level for this kind of web apps. We all know such levels for action games (which is 60fps minimum), 25fps for videostreaming. Can anyone give me some information reagarding minimal FPS level for drawing web apps? What tools would you recomend to test my app?

  Read the article

• Can not update Natty running from a USB stick

  - by Ingo Gerth

  In a blogpost Jono explained a nice way to test the latest version of Natty. Under point four he proposes: Step 4: Update Although you installed the latest daily you should ensure it is up to date, and you can do this with: sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get upgrade Now, I followed all the steps and am actually writing this question from a session running on a 4GB USB stick. When trying to update the installation though (I just tried to do that using the Update Manager), it always fails because I do not have enough disc space remaining. How can I get Ubuntu to update properly on my USB stick?

  Read the article

• Is the difference between BDD and TDD nothing more than a vocabulary shift?

  - by Desolate Planet

  Hello, I recently made a start on learning BDD (Behaviour Driven Development) after watching a Google tech talk presented by David Astels. He made a very interesting case for using BDD and some of the literature I've read seem to highlight that it's easier to sell BDD to management. Admittedly, I'm a little skeptical about BDD after watching the above video. So, I'm interested to understand if BDD is indeed nothing more than a change in vocabulary or if it offers other benefits.

  Read the article

• How can I refresh/reinstall/clear/set-to-default my bootup process?

  - by Tchalvak

  I'm currently having a problem with my bootup process that is growing progressively worse as time goes on: While booting, it does a few minutes of hard-drive reading. During that, instead of showing a boot splash screen, it shows various dashes and dots, as if the video card isn't recognizing. The splash screen actually has colors similar to the splash screen (purple), it simply is garbled. It then does a few minutes of hard-drive reads, and if I leave it long enough, sometimes it boots into the desktop (and auto-logs-in). Sometimes, unfortunately, it just hangs on that garbled screen and reads from the hard-drive forever. Notably, I've also stopped being able to access grub during bootup (perhaps it is just not displayed correctly by the video, hard to tell). This is a symptom that has grown over the course of various ubuntu upgrades, at least I suspect that the upgrade process is leaving behind cruft. So, is there a safe way for me to "refresh" the boot system so that it is clean, new, fast, and reliable? For example, to test out a cleanly configured boot, make sure that it works (try before I buy), and then apply it to the system to eliminate as much of this problem as possible? Edit: Here is the requested bootchart: http://imgur.com/9jocF

  Read the article

• How to organize a Coding Dojo?

  - by Stephan

  Over on stack overflow it was asked how to organize a coding dojo (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4338567/how-to-organize-a-coding-dojo-event). I believe that may have been the wrong forum... I wonder the same thing: how is a Codeing Dojo organized? What is the structure of a meeting? How would one pick Katas? What do you plan ahead of time? I am interested in any ideas on this as well as links to any resource that may be outlining this.

  Read the article

• What to do when TDD tests reveal new functionality that is needed that also needs tests?

  - by Joshua Harris

  What do you do when you are writing a test and you get to the point where you need to make the test pass and you realize that you need an additional piece of functionality that should be separated into its own function? That new function needs to be tested as well, but the TDD cycle says to Make a test fail, make it pass then refactor. If I am on the step where I am trying to make my test pass I'm not supposed to go off and start another failing test to test the new functionality that I need to implement. For example, I am writing a point class that has a function WillCollideWith(LineSegment): public class Point { // Point data and constructor ... public bool CollidesWithLine(LineSegment lineSegment) { Vector PointEndOfMovement = new Vector(Position.X + Velocity.X, Position.Y + Velocity.Y); LineSegment pointPath = new LineSegment(Position, PointEndOfMovement); if (lineSegment.Intersects(pointPath)) return true; return false; } } I was writing a test for CollidesWithLine when I realized that I would need a LineSegment.Intersects(LineSegment) function. But, should I just stop what I am doing on my test cycle to go create this new functionality? That seems to break the "Red, Green, Refactor" principle. Should I just write the code that detects that lineSegments Intersect inside of the CollidesWithLine function and refactor it after it is working? That would work in this case since I can access the data from LineSegment, but what about in cases where that kind of data is private?

  Read the article

• Should tests be in the same Ruby file or in separated Ruby files?

  - by Junior Mayhé

  While using Selenium and Ruby to do some functional tests, I am worried with the performance. So is it better to add all test methods in the same Ruby file, or I should put each one in separated code files? Below a sample with all tests in the same file: # encoding: utf-8 require "selenium-webdriver" require "test/unit" class Tests < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @driver = Selenium::WebDriver.for :firefox @base_url = "http://mysite" @driver.manage.timeouts.implicit_wait = 30 @verification_errors = [] @wait = Selenium::WebDriver::Wait.new :timeout => 10 end def teardown @driver.quit assert_equal [], @verification_errors end def element_present?(how, what) @driver.find_element(how, what) true rescue Selenium::WebDriver::Error::NoSuchElementError false end def verify(&blk) yield rescue Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError => ex @verification_errors << ex end def test_1 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_2 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_3 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_4 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end def test_5 @driver.get(@base_url + "/") # a huge test here end end

  Read the article

• Is deserializing complex objects instead of creating them a good idea, in test setup?

  - by Chris Bye

  I'm writing tests for a component that takes very complex objects as input. These tests are mixes of tests against already existing components, and test-first tests for new features. Instead of re-creating my input objects (this would be a large chunk of code) or reading one from our data store, I had the thought to serialize a live instance of one of these objects, and just deserialize it into test setup. I can't decide if this is a reasonable idea that will save effort in long run, or whether it's the worst idea that I've ever had, causing those that will maintain this code will hunt me down as soon as they read it. Is deserialization of inputs a valid means of test setup in some cases? To give a sense of scale of what I'm dealing with, the size of serialization output for one of these input objects is 93KB. Obtained by, in C#: new BinaryFormatter().Serialize((Stream)fileStream, myObject);

  Read the article

• Is Akka a good solution for a concurrent pipeline/workflow problem?

  - by herpylderp

  Disclaimer: I am brand new to Akka and the concept of Actors/Event-Driven Architectures in general. I have to implement a fairly complex problem where users can configure a "concurrent pipeline": Pipeline: consists of 1+ Stages; all Stages execute sequentially Stage: consists of 1+ Tasks; all Tasks execute in parallel Task: essentially a Java Runnable As you can see above, a Task is a Runnable that does some unit of work. Tasks are organized into Stages, which execute their Tasks in parallel. Stages are organized into the Pipeline, which executes its Stages sequentially. Hence if a user specifies the following Pipeline: CrossTheRoadSafelyPipeline Stage 1: Look Left Task 1: Turn your head to the left and look for cars Task 2: Listen for cars Stage 2: Look right Task 1: Turn your head to the right and look for cars Task 2: Listen for cars Then, Stage 1 will execute, and then Stage 2 will execute. However, while each Stage is executing, it's individual Tasks are executing in parallel/at the same time. In reality Pipelines will become very complicated, and with hundreds of Stages, dozens of Tasks per Stage (again, executing at the same time). To implement this Pipeline I can only think of several solutions: ESB/Apache Camel Guava Event Bus Java 5 Concurrency Actors/Akka Camel doesn't seem right because its core competency is integration not synchrony and orchestration across worker threads. Guava is great, but this doesn't really feel like a subscriber/publisher-type of problem. And Java 5 Concurrency (ExecutorService, etc.) just feels too low-level and painful. So I ask: is Akka a strong candidate for this type of problem? If so, how? If not, then why, and what is a good candidate?

  Read the article

• What have you learned from the bugs you helped discover and fix?

  - by Ethel Evans

  I liked the core of this question, and wanted to re-ask it in a way that made it less about 'fun' and more about 'What do these past mistakes tell us about how we can write and test software better?' As an SDET, I'm always looking for anecdotes about new and interesting ways that programs can fail. I've learned a lot from these tales in the past, and would like to get that from the intelligent people in this community as well. I'd be interested in hearing what the issue was, how it was caught, if you think there was anything that could have reasonably done to catch it earlier or to avoid the same issue on later projects, and any other interesting lessons you took away from this bug. Please only write about bugs you personally were involved with, ideally on a project you worked on (e.g., no "10 years before I was born, this happened and it was FUNNY!" answers). Please vote up answers that are thought-provoking or could change how you develop or test in some way, so this isn't just 'social fun'. Try to avoid voting up something just because it was funny.

  Read the article

• Service to test app on all the iPhones?

  - by David

  I have some developers creating an iPhone app, often the app will not work on one type of iPhone even though it worked on another one using the same version of iOS. Therefore, I am looking for a service where I can test the app natively on all the iPhone versions running various versions of iOS. I would like to be able to interact with the iPhones myself, so that I know that a specific bug has actually been fixed before, pushing to App Store and waiting 9 days for the review before I can hear the sad news from customers. Googling got me nowhere. Do such services exist?

  Read the article

• How to keep the trunk stable when tests take a long time?

  - by Oak

  We have three sets of test suites: A "small" suite, taking only a couple of hours to run A "medium" suite that takes multiple hours, usually ran every night (nightly) A "large" suite that takes a week+ to run We also have a bunch of shorter test suites, but I'm not focusing on them here. The current methodology is to run the small suite before each commit to the trunk. Then, the medium suite runs every night, and if in the morning it turned out it failed, we try to isolate which of yesterday's commits was to blame, rollback that commit and retry the tests. A similar process, only at a weekly instead of nightly frequency, is done for the large suite. Unfortunately, the medium suite does fail pretty frequently. That means that the trunk is often unstable, which is extremely annoying when you want to make modifications and test them. It's annoying because when I check out from the trunk, I cannot know for certain it's stable, and if a test fails I cannot know for certain if it's my fault or not. My question is, is there some known methodology for handling these kinds of situations in a way which will leave the trunk always in top shape? e.g. "commit into a special precommit branch which will then periodically update the trunk every time the nightly passes". And does it matter if it's a centralized source control system like SVN or a distributed one like git? By the way I am a junior developer with a limited ability to change things, I'm just trying to understand if there's a way to handle this pain I am experiencing.

  Read the article

• What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

  - by Mr_E

  I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Which parallel pattern to use?

  - by Wim Van Houts

  I need to write a server application that fetches mails from different mail servers/mailboxes and then needs to process/analyze these mails. Traditionally, I would do this multi-threaded, launching a thread for fetching mails (or maybe one per mailbox) and then process the mails. We are moving more and more to servers where we have 8+ cores, so I would like to make use of these cores as much as possible (and not use 1 at 100% and leave the seven others untouched). So conceptually, as an example, it would be nice that I could write the application in such a way that two cores are "continuously" fetching emails and four cores are "continuously" processing/analyzing the emails (since processing and analyzing mails is more CPU intensive than fetching mails). This seems like a good concept, but after studying some parallel patterns, I'm not really sure how this is best implemented. None of the patterns really fit. I'm working in VS2012, native C++, but I guess from a design point of view this does not really matter and just some pointers on how to organize this would be great!

  Read the article

• Skip CodedUI Tests, use Selenium for Web Automation

  - by Aligned

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/10/31/skip-codedui-tests-use-selenium-for-web-automation.aspxI recently joined a team that was using Agile Methodologies to create a new product. They have a working beta product after 10 or so 2 week sprints and already had UI’s that had changed several times as they went through iterations of their UI. As a result, the QA team was falling behind with automated tests and I was tasked to help them catch up and expand their tests. The project is a website. I heard many complaints about how hard it is to work with CodedUI (writing our own code, not relying on the recorder as we wanted re-usable and more maintainable code) then it took me 4+ hours to fix one issue. It was hard to traverse the key and debugging the objects with breakpoints… I said out loud “there has to be a better way or a framework the uses jQuery to run through the tests.” Plus it seemed really slow (wait… finding the object … wait… start putting in text…). Plus some tests would randomly fail on the test agents (using the test settings and an automated build, they are run on VMs using Microsoft test agents). Enough complaining. Selenium to the rescue (mostly). The lead QA guy decided to try it out and we haven’t turned back. We are now running tests in Chrome and Firefox and they run a lot faster. We had IE running to, but some of the tests were running fine locally, but hanging on the test agents. I’ll add some hints and lessons learned in a later post.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >