Search Results

Search found 47903 results on 1917 pages for 'test driven development'.

Page 66/1917 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

  • Kruskal-Wallis test with details on pairwise comparisons

    - by dalloliogm
    The standard stats::kruskal.test module allows to calculate the kruskal-wallis test on a dataset: >>> data(diamonds) >>> kruskal.test.test(price~carat, data=diamonds) Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test data: price by carat by color Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 50570.15, df = 272, p-value < 2.2e-16 this is correct, it is giving me a probability that all the groups in the data have the same mean. However, I would like to have the details for each pair comparison, like if diamonds of colors D and E have the same mean price, as some other softwares do (SPSS) when you ask for a Kruskal test. I have found kruskalmc from the package pgirmess which allows me to do what I want to do: > kruskalmc(diamonds$price, diamonds$color) Multiple comparison test after Kruskal-Wallis p.value: 0.05 Comparisons obs.dif critical.dif difference D-E 571.7459 747.4962 FALSE D-F 2237.4309 751.5684 TRUE D-G 2643.1778 726.9854 TRUE D-H 4539.4392 774.4809 TRUE D-I 6002.6286 862.0150 TRUE D-J 8077.2871 1061.7451 TRUE E-F 2809.1767 680.4144 TRUE E-G 3214.9237 653.1587 TRUE E-H 5111.1851 705.6410 TRUE E-I 6574.3744 800.7362 TRUE E-J 8649.0330 1012.6260 TRUE F-G 405.7470 657.8152 FALSE F-H 2302.0083 709.9533 TRUE F-I 3765.1977 804.5390 TRUE F-J 5839.8562 1015.6357 TRUE G-H 1896.2614 683.8760 TRUE G-I 3359.4507 781.6237 TRUE G-J 5434.1093 997.5813 TRUE H-I 1463.1894 825.9834 TRUE H-J 3537.8479 1032.7058 TRUE I-J 2074.6585 1099.8776 TRUE However, this package only allows for one categoric variable (e.g. I can't study the prices clustered by color and by carat, as I can do with kruskal.test), and I don't know anything about the pgirmess package, whether it is maintained or not, or if it is tested. Can you recommend me a package to execute the Kruskal-Wallis test which returns details for every comparison? How would you handle the problem?

    Read the article

  • Advice for a computer science sophomore in college?

    - by RDas
    Hi Everyone! I'm a sophomore in college majoring in Computer Science and Math. I have always loved programming. I started programming in C when I was nine years old and over the years I've picked up Visual Basic, C#, Java, C++, JavaScript, Objective-C, Python, Ruby, elementary Haskell and elementary Erlang, and I learned Perl back in the day which I've mostly forgotten. I have not done much network programming. I have done CGI programming, but that was about six/seven years ago. I've done some socket programming and written (school) programs to do interprocess communication, which I understood and liked. I'm taking a course on client/server programming and another one on network security next semester, which I am really looking forward to. I'm seeking advice on how to proceed with future learning. I've mostly done application (mobile and desktop) development, not much of web development. I'd like to pick up some web development this coming semester. Since I know Ruby and Python, should I start by learning Django and/or Rails? Any other suggestions on starting web development? I have a good understanding of HTML and CSS. Also, I'd also like to know how hard it is to pick up and be good (read: productive) in functional programming languages coming from a purely structured/object oriented background? I've been reading up on Erlang and Haskell, and I'd like to know your opinions on whether it's worth my time trying to learn them. What about Lisp, Scheme and other functional languages? Any help/ideas would be really appreciated.

    Read the article

  • playframework auto-test Jenkins CI wait for completion?

    - by notbrain
    I am trying to set up Jenkins CI for a playframework.org application but am having trouble properly launching play after the auto-test command is run. The tests all run fine, but it seems as though my script is launching both play auto-test and play start --%ci at the same time. When the play start --%ci command runs, it gets a pid and everything, but it's not running. FILE: auto-test.sh, jenkins runs this with execute shell #!/bin/bash # pwd is jenkins workspace dir # change into approot dir cd customer-portal; # kill any previous play launches if [ -e "server.pid" ] then kill `cat server.pid`; rm -rf server.pid; fi # drop and re-create the DB mysql --user=USER --password=PASS --host=HOSTNAME < ../setupdb.sql # auto-test the most recent build /usr/local/lib/play/play auto-test; # this is inadequate for waiting for auto-test to complete? # how to wait for actual process completion? # sleep 60; wait; # Conditional start based on tests # Launch normal on pass, test on fail # if [ -e "./test-result/result.passed" ] then /usr/local/lib/play/play start --%ci; exit 0; else /usr/local/lib/play/play test; exit 1; fi

    Read the article

  • .NET Test Harness what should it have

    - by Conor
    Hi Folks, We have a software house developing code for us on a project, .NET Web Service (WCF) and we are also paying for a test harness to be built as a separate billable task on a daily rate. I have just joined the company and am reviewing what we are getting from the software house and wanted to know what you guys in industry thought about it? Basically what we got was a WinForm that called the w/s that had an input area (Web Service Request) to drop our XML a Submit button along with a response area for the result of the Web Response and that's it... Our internal BA has created all the xml request documents so there was no logic put into the harness around this. Looking on the Net for a definition of a Test Harness I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_harness It states it should have these 3 below things: Automate the testing process. Execute test suites of test cases. Generate associated test reports. Clearly we have got none of this apart from a partial "Automate the testing process" via a WinForm. OK, from my development background I would expect someone to Produce a WinForm as a test harness 5 years ago and really should be using some sort of Tooling around this, I explicitly told the Software House I expected some sort of tooling (NUnit,NBUnit, SOAPIU) so we could create a regression test pack for future use. [Didn’t get it but I asked for this after the requirements were signed off as I wasn’t employed then :)] Would someone be able to clarify with me if my requirement for this is over realistic, I know if I did this, I would use NUnit and TDD and then reuse the test harness as a regression test pack in future? I am interested to see what the community thought. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Test Results window in VS2008 not showing results

    - by TimK
    I have an existing solution that has been working for a long time, containing around 600 tests in a couple of test projects. I recently moved to a new PC - it's Win7-x64, and I installed a fresh copy of VS2008. When I first opened the solution on the new machine, the Test List Editor was completely empty. Trying to create a new test list caused the editor to refresh, and now it shows my test lists, but they're acting funny. I can select tests in the lists, and run them, but the results window doesn't usually update automatically to show the results of the latest test. It has done this when running a single test a couple of times, but even that is not consistent. The only way I can view the results is by manually going to the Test Runs window and connecting to individual test runs. When I do that, the results show up in the results list, but I can't check them to re-run the failed tests - the check boxes are all disabled. I guess I should describe the way it used to work, in case that was unusual - I used to select some tests from the Test Lists window, tell it to run them, and the results window would clear itself, and then display the results from the current run. I could then check any tests that I wanted to re-run, and use the run/debug button in the results window to do so. Any ideas what's going on here?

    Read the article

  • postgresql table for storing automation test results

    - by Martin
    I am building an automation test suite which is running on multiple machines, all reporting their status to a postgresql database. We will run a number of automated tests for which we will store the following information: test ID (a GUID) test name test description status (running, done, waiting to be run) progress (%) start time of test end time of test test result latest screenshot of the running test (updated every 30 seconds) The number of tests isn't huge (say a few thousands) and each machine (say, 50 of them) have a service which checks the database and figures out if it's time to start a new automated test on that machine. How should I organize my SQL table to store all the information? Is a single table with a column per attribute the way to go? If in the future I need to add attributes but want to keep compatibility with old database format (ie I may not want to delete and create a new table with more columns), how should I proceed? Should the new attributes just be in a different table? I'm also thinking of replicating the database. In case of failure, I don't mind if the latest screenshots aren't backed up on the slave database. Should I just store the screenshots in its own table to simplify the replication? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Effective versus efficient code

    - by Todd Williamson
    TL;DR: Quick and dirty code, or "correct" (insert your definition of this term) code? There is often a tension between "efficient" and "effective" in software development. "Efficient" often means code that is "correct" from the point of view of adhering to standards, using widely-accepted patterns/approaches for structures, regardless of project size, budget, etc. "Effective" is not about being "right", but about getting things done. This often results in code that falls outside the bounds of commonly accepted "correct" standards, usage, etc. Usually the people paying for the development effort have dictated ahead of time what it is that they value more. An organization that lives in a technical space will tend towards the efficient end, others will tend towards the effective. Developers often refuse to compromise their favored approach for the other. In my own experience I have found that people with formal education in software development tend towards the Efficient camp. Those that picked up software development more or less as a tool to get things done tend towards the Effective camp. These camps don't get along very well. When managing a team of developers who are not all in one camp it is challenging. In your own experience, which camp do you land in, and do you find yourself having to justify your approach to others? To management? To other developers?

    Read the article

  • Generic unit test scheduling

    - by Raphink
    Hello, I'm (re)writing a program that does generic unit test scheduling. The current program is a mono-threaded Perl program, but I'm willing to modularize it and parallelize the tests. I'm also considering rewriting it in Python. Here is what I need to do: I have a list of tests, with the following attributes: uri: a URI to test (could be HTTP/HTTPS/SSH/local) ; depends: an associative array of tests/values that this test depends on ; join: a list of DB joints to be added when selecting items to process in this test ; depends_db: additional conditions to add to the DB request when selecting items to process in this test. The program builds a dependency tree, beginning with the tests that have no dependencies ; for each test: a list of items is selected from the database using the conditions (results of depending tests, joints and depends_db) ; the list of items is sent to the URI (using POST or stdin) ; the result is retrived as a YAML file listing the state and comments for the test for each tested item ; the results are stored in the DB ; the test returns, allowing depending tests to be performed. the program generates reports (CSV, DB, graphviz) of the performed tests. The primary use of this program currently is to test a fleet of machines against services such as backup, DNS, etc. The tests can then be: - backup: hosted on the backup machine(s), called through HTTP, checks if the machines' backup went well ; - DNS: hosted on the local machine, called via stdin, checks if the machines' fqdn have a valid DNS entry. Does such a tool/module already exist? What would be the best implementation to achieve this (using Perl or Python)?

    Read the article

  • How Service Component Architecture (SCA) Can Be Incorporated Into Existing Enterprise Systems

    After viewing Rob High’s presentation “The SOA Component Model” hosted on InfoQ.com, I can foresee how Service Component Architecture (SCA) can be incorporated in to an existing enterprise. According to IBM’s DeveloperWorks website, SCA is a set of conditions which outline a model for constructing applications/systems using a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). In addition, SCA builds on open standards such as Web services. In the future, I can easily see how some large IT shops could potently divide development teams or work groups up into Component/Data Object Groups, and Standard Development Groups. The Component/Data Object Group would only work on creating and maintaining components that are reused throughout the entire enterprise. The Standard Development Group would work on new and existing projects that incorporate the use of various components to accomplish various business tasks. In my opinion the incorporation of SCA in to any IT department will initially slow down the number of new features developed due to the time needed to create the new and loosely-coupled components. However once a company becomes more mature in its SCA process then the number of program features developed will greatly increase. I feel this is due to the fact that the loosely-coupled components needed in order to add the new features will already be built and ready to incorporate into any new development feature request. References: BEA Systems, Cape Clear Software, IBM, Interface21, IONA Technologies PLC, Oracle, Primeton Technologies Ltd, Progress Software, Red Hat Inc., Rogue Wave Software, SAP AG, Siebel Systems, Software AG, Sun Microsystems, Sybase, TIBCO Software Inc. (2006). Service Component Architecture. Retrieved 11 27, 2011, from DeveloperWorks: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-sca/ High, R. (2007). The SOA Component Model. Retrieved 11 26, 2011, from InfoQ: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/rob-high-sca-sdo-soa-programming-model

    Read the article

  • Tracking feature requests for small-scale components

    - by DXM
    I'm curious how other development teams (especially those that work in moderate to large development groups) track "future" features/wishlists for functionality for internally developed frameworks or components. I know the standard advice is that a development team should find one good tool for tracking bugs/features and use that for everything and I agree with that if the future requests are for the product itself. In my company we have an engineering department, which is broken up into multiple groups and within each there can be one to several agile teams. The bug tracking product we use has been "a leader since 1997" (their UI/usability seems to also be evaluated against that year even today) but my agile team or even group doesn't really control what is being used by the whole department. What we are looking to track is not necessarily product features but expansion/nice to have functionality for internal components that go into our product. So to name a few for example... framework/utility library on top of CppUnit which our developers share low-level IPC communications framework Common development SDK that myself and several other team leads started to help share some common code/tools at the department-wide level (this SDK is released as internal "product" to each of the groups). Is the standard practice to use the one bug tracking tool? Or would it make more sense to setup something more localized specifically for our needs and maintain it ourselves? It's also unclear how management will feel if developers start performing "IT" roles of maintaining software and servers. At the same time, right now, we use excel files, internal wiki and MS OneNote for this kind of stuff and that just doesn't feel right. (I'm afraid to ask for actual software recommendations, since that might make this question more localized or something. Also developers needs this way more than management, so it would be nice to find something either free or no more than the cost of a happy hour).

    Read the article

  • android instrumentation testsuite

    - by siri
    Hi I have written two test cases in a package com.app.myapp.test When I try to run them both of them are not getting executed, only one test case gets executed and stops. I have written the following testsuite in the same package AllTests.java public class AllTests extends TestSuite { public static Test suite() { return new TestSuiteBuilder(AllTests.class).includePackages("./src/com.ni.mypaint.test","./src/com.ni.mpaint.test").build(); /* .includeAllPackagesUnderHere() .build();*/ } Is the code and location for this testsuite is correct?

    Read the article

  • Not getting paid for hours you've worked?

    - by Sauron
    So I was reading from a previous thread about App vs Game Development: If it was for you to chose Game Development vs Application Development, which will you chose? Which brought me to this site: EA: The Human Story A lot of it talked about developers working something like 85 hours a week, and not getting paid overtime, or anything. Just getting paid for the 40 hours. Is this normal for most software companies? I mean where I work I'm only an entry level guy but I get overtime, and anything over 40 hours is considered this. But it got me thinking "Holy crap" I could never do that. My FREE time is important to me. But is this commonplace in most software companies? Or is more a rarity to certain types (game development, etc)? Because it got me scared! Like I understand having to put some extra hours in for a project... but like 80! that's ridiculous.

    Read the article

  • What are the common mistakes in 'tailored Scrum approaches'?

    - by Clark Gable
    I have seen this before. Management wants to be agile and be scrummified, but does not want to step out of the status quo. My latest observation is no different; here, the Scrum is 'tailored' to the organization; specifically into a weird many-people-process. The diagram showing the different participants. I am putting together a document listing why this will not work. Here are the obvious ones: 1. There are product owner agents (an obvious WTF), who report to the product owner: causing dilution of decision making capability 2. There is a role that looks similar to a manager in the traditional approach - development manager: an obvious attempt at command-and-control model 3. The ScrumMaster's role includes collecting timesheets, which are used to track progress instead of burndown charts: detrimental to agile's efforts to build teams with motivated individuals Leaving the question "how would you convince the management?", my question is more at, "what else do you see as failures in this/similar 'tailored Scrum approaches'? EDIT: The diagram might use a few more details 1. The development manager is not part of the development team, with not very clearly defined responsibilities, except: developer performance assessemnt, recruitment, etc., 2. There are more than two teams (with ScrumMaster+development manager+dev team) with the same product owner for all teams!

    Read the article

  • 12.04 on Pentium Dual Core with 1GB or ram running slow

    - by Alex
    hey i have a Lenovo Thinkpad Laptop with Ubuntu 12.04 installed. It runs slow. I tried "System profiler and Benchmark" to test the computer. but the application quits and closes after the first few benchmark test. before it even gets to the other tests. So i tried "Hardinfo" that installed on the Puppy Linux live cd. that did the same thing (the apps look just a like). the memory usage isnt the problem on this pc. its the cpu processes. just running the "system profiler" app that comes with ubuntu uses about 34% on each core, default with nothing running its 5-10% on each core. i cant really find what the deal is other than that ubuntu is a cpu hog. so im testing unity2D at the moment to see how it goes. if you have any other suggestions, feel free to answer this question. thanks

    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

  • Emulating Test::More::done_testing - what is the most idiomatic way?

    - by DVK
    I have to build unit tests for in environment with a very old version of Test::More (perl5.8 with $Test::More::VERSION being '0.80') which predates the addition of done_testing(). Upgrading to newer Test::More is out of the question for practical reasons. And I am trying to avoid using no_tests - it's generally a bad idea not catching when your unit test dies prematurely. What is the most idiomatic way of running a configurable amount of tests, assuming no no_tests or done_testing() is used? Details: My unit tests usually take the form of: use Test::More; my @test_set = ( [ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] ,[ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] # ,... ); foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } sub run_test { # $expected_tests += count_tests($test); ok(test1($test)) || diag("Test1 failed"); # ... } The standard approach of use Test::More tests => 23; or BEGIN {plan tests => 23} does not work since both are obviously executed before @tests is known. My current approach involves making @tests global and defining it in the BEGIN {} block as follows: use Test::More; BEGIN { our @test_set = (); # Same set of tests as above my $expected_tests = 0; foreach my $test (@tests) { my $expected_tests += count_tests($test); } plan tests = $expected_tests; } our @test_set; # Must do!!! Since first "our" was in BEGIN's scope :( foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } # Same sub run_test {} # Same I feel this can be done more idiomatically but not certain how to improve. Chief among the smells is the duplicate our @test_test declarations - in BEGIN{} and after it.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding bloated Domain Objects

    - by djcredo
    We're trying to move data from our bloated Service layer into our Domain layer using a DDD approach. We currently have a lot of business logic in our services, which is spread out all over the place and doesn't benefit from inheritance. We have a central Domain class which is the focus of most of our work - a Trade. The Trade object will know how to price itself, how to estimate risk, validate itself, etc. We can then replace conditionals with polymorphism. Eg: SimpleTrade will price itself one way, but ComplexTrade will price itself another. However, we are worried that this will bloat the Trade class(s). It really should be in charge of its own processing but the class size is going to increase exponentially as more features are added. So we have choices: Put processing logic in Trade class. Processing logic is now polymorphic based on the type of the trade, but Trade class is now has multiple responsibilites (pricing, risk, etc) and is large Put processing logic into other class such as TradePricingService. No longer polymorphic with the Trade inheritance tree, but classes are smaller and easier to test. What would be the suggested approach?

    Read the article

  • Regular expression test can't decide between true and false (JavaScript)

    - by nw
    I get this behavior in both Chrome (Developer Tools) and Firefox (Firebug). Note the regex test returns alternating true/false values: > var re = /.*?\bbl.*\bgr.*/gi; undefined > re /.*?\\bbl.*\\bgr.*/gi > re.test("Blue-Green"); true > re.test("Blue-Green"); false > re.test("Blue-Green"); true > re.test("Blue-Green"); false However, testing the same regex as a literal: > /.*?\bbl.*\bgr.*/gi.test("Blue-Green"); true > /.*?\bbl.*\bgr.*/gi.test("Blue-Green"); true > /.*?\bbl.*\bgr.*/gi.test("Blue-Green"); true > /.*?\bbl.*\bgr.*/gi.test("Blue-Green"); true I can't explain this and it's making debugging very difficult. Can anyone explain this behavior?

    Read the article

  • A basic load test question

    - by user236131
    I have a very basic load test question. I am running a load test using VSTS 2008 and I have test rig with controller + 10 agents. This load test is against a SharePoint farm I have. My goal of the load test is to find out the resource utilization on web+app+db tiers of my farm for any given load scenario. An example of a load scenario is Usage profile: Average collaboration (as defined by SCCP) User Load: 500 (using step load pattern=a step of 50 every 2 mins and a warm up time of 2mins for every step) Think time: 0 Load duration: 8hrs Now, the question is: Is it fair to expect that metrics like Requests/sec, %processor time on web front end / App / DB, Test/sec, and etc become flat or enter a steady state at one point in time during the load test. Like I said, the goal is not to create a bottleneck but to only measure the utilization of resources by the above load profile. I am asking this question because I see something different. At one point in the load test, requests/sec becomes more or less flat. But processor utilization on the web/DB servers keeps increasing. After digging through the data a bit, I see that "tests running" counter also steadily increased over time. So, if I run the load test for more than 8hrs, %processor may go up further. This way, I don't know what to consider as the load excreted by the load profile. What does this "tests running" counter really signify? How is this different from tests/sec? Another question is: how can I find out why "tests running" counter shows an increase overtime? Thanks for your time

    Read the article

  • Pass command line arguments to JUnit test case being run programmatically

    - by __nv__
    I am attempting to run a JUnit Test from a Java Class with: JUnitCore core = new JUnitCore(); core.addListener(new RunListener()); core.run(classToRun); Problem is my JUnit test requires a database connection that is currently hardcoded in the JUnit test itself. What I am looking for is a way to run the JUnit test programmatically(above) but pass a database connection to it that I create in my Java Class that runs the test, and not hardcoded within the JUnit class. Basically something like JUnitCore core = new JUnitCore(); core.addListener(new RunListener()); core.addParameters(java.sql.Connection); core.run(classToRun); Then within the classToRun: @Test Public void Test1(Connection dbConnection){ Statement st = dbConnection.createStatement(); ResultSet rs = st.executeQuery("select total from dual"); rs.next(); String myTotal = rs.getString("TOTAL"); //btw my tests are selenium testcases:) selenium.isTextPresent(myTotal); } I know about The @Parameters, but it doesn't seem applicable here as it is more for running the same test case multiple times with differing values. I want all of my test cases to share a database connection that I pass in through a configuration file to my java client that then runs those test cases (also passed in through the configuration file). Is this possible? P.S. I understand this seems like an odd way of doing things.

    Read the article

  • Autoloading Development or Production configs (best practices)

    - by Xeoncross
    When programming sites you usually have one set of config files for the development environment and another set for the production server (or one file with both settings). I am assuming all projects should be handled by version control like git or svn. Manual file transfers (like FTP) is wrong on so many levels. How you enable/disable the correct settings (so that your system knows which ones to use) is a problem for me. Each system I work on just kind of jimmy-rigs a solution. Below are the 3 methods I know of and I am hoping that someone can submit a more elegant solutions. 1) File Based The system loads a folder structure based on the URL requested. /site.com /site.fakeTLD /lib index.php For example, if the url is http://site.com then the system loads the production config files located in the site.com folder. However, if I'm working on the site locally I visit http://site.fakeTLD to work on the local copy of the site. To setup this I edit my hosts file and add site.fakeTLD to point to my own computer (127.0.0.1/localhost) and then create a vhost in apache. So now I can work on the codebase locally and then push to the server without any trouble. The problem is that this is susceptible to a "host" injection attack. So someone loading site.com could set the host to site.fakeTLD and then the system would load my development config files instead of production. 2) Config Based The config files contain on section for development - and one for production. The problem is that each time you go to push your changes to the repo you have to edit the file to specify which set of config options should be used. $use = 'production'; //'development'; This leaves the repo open to human error should one of the developers forget to enable the right setting. 3) File System Check Based All the development machines have an extra empty file called "development.txt" or something. Each time the system loads it checks for this file - if found then it knows it is in development mode - if missing then it knows it is in production mode. Since the file is NEVER ADDED to the repo then it will never be pushed (and checked out) on the production machine. However, this just doesn't feel right and causes a slight slow down since all filesystem checks are slow.

    Read the article

  • SQLAuthority News – Professional Development and Community

    - by pinaldave
    I was recently invited by Hyderabad Techies to deliver a keynote for their 16-day online session called TECH THUNDERS. This event has been running from May 15 and will continue up to the end of the month May 30). There would be a total of 30 sessions. In every evening of those 16 day, there will be either one or two sessions from several noted industry experts. It is the same group which has received the Microsoft Community Impact Award as the Best User Group in India as for developers. I have never talked about Professional Development before. Even if this was my first time to do so, I still accepted the wonderful challenge for the sake of the thousands of audience who were expected to attend this online event. Time is of the essence; I had 15 minutes to deliver the keynote and open the event. The reason why I was nervous was because I had to cover precisely only 15 minutes- no more, no less. If I had an hour, I would have been very confident because I knew I could do a good job for sure. However, I still needed to open the event as great as it can be even if the time was short. I finally created a 6-slide small presentation. In reality, there were only two pages which had the main contents of my keynote, and the remaining slides were just wrappers and decors. You can download the complete slide deck from here. The image used in the slide deck is a curtsy of blog reader Roger Smith who sent it to me. The slide in which I spent a good amount of time is the slide which talks about Professional Development. The content of the slide is as follows: Today, Technology and You Keep your eyes, ears and senses open – Stay Active! You are not the first one who faced the problem – Search Online! Learn the web – Blogs, Forums and Friends! Trust the Technology, Not Print – Test Everything! Community and You! I had a very little time creating the slide deck as I was busy the whole day doing the Advanced SQL Server Training. I had put together these slides during the tea/coffee break of my session. Though it was just a six-bullet point, I had received quite a few emails right after keynote requesting me to talk more about this subject and share the details of my slide deck. I have talked with the event organizer and he will put the keynote online very soon. The subject of the talk is very simple; it revolves around the community. Time has changed, and Internet has come a long way from where it was many years ago. Now that we are all connected, help via the Internet and useful software is easily available around us. In fact, RSS, Newletters and few other technologies have progressed so much that the help through news is now being delivered to our door steps, instead of going out and seeking them. Sometimes, a simple search online solves a lot of problems of many developers. The community is now the first stop for any developer when he or she needs help or just wants to hang around and share some thoughts. I strongly suggest everybody to be a part of the Tech Community. Be it online, offline community or just a local user group, I strongly advise all of you to get involved. I am active in the Community, and I must say I recommend getting drawn into it. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: MVP, Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL User Group, SQLAuthority News, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Community

    Read the article

  • Waterfall Model (SDLC) vs. Prototyping Model

    The characters in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare can easily be used to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the Waterfall and Prototyping software development models. This children fable is about a race between a consistently slow moving but steadfast turtle and an extremely fast but unreliable rabbit. After closely comparing each character’s attributes in correlation with both software development models, a trend seems to appear in that the Waterfall closely resembles the Tortoise in that Waterfall Model is typically a slow moving process that is broken up in to multiple sequential steps that must be executed in a standard linear pattern. The Tortoise can be quoted several times in the story saying “Slow and steady wins the race.” This is the perfect mantra for the Waterfall Model in that this model is seen as a cumbersome and slow moving. Waterfall Model Phases Requirement Analysis & Definition This phase focuses on defining requirements for a project that is to be developed and determining if the project is even feasible. Requirements are collected by analyzing existing systems and functionality in correlation with the needs of the business and the desires of the end users. The desired output for this phase is a list of specific requirements from the business that are to be designed and implemented in the subsequent steps. In addition this phase is used to determine if any value will be gained by completing the project. System Design This phase focuses primarily on the actual architectural design of a system, and how it will interact within itself and with other existing applications. Projects at this level should be viewed at a high level so that actual implementation details are decided in the implementation phase. However major environmental decision like hardware and platform decision are typically decided in this phase. Furthermore the basic goal of this phase is to design an application at the system level in those classes, interfaces, and interactions are defined. Additionally decisions about scalability, distribution and reliability should also be considered for all decisions. The desired output for this phase is a functional  design document that states all of the architectural decisions that have been made in regards to the project as well as a diagrams like a sequence and class diagrams. Software Design This phase focuses primarily on the refining of the decisions found in the functional design document. Classes and interfaces are further broken down in to logical modules based on the interfaces and interactions previously indicated. The output of this phase is a formal design document. Implementation / Coding This phase focuses primarily on implementing the previously defined modules in to units of code. These units are developed independently are intergraded as the system is put together as part of a whole system. Software Integration & Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing each of the units of code developed as well as testing the system as a whole. There are basic types of testing at this phase and they include: Unit Test and Integration Test. Unit Test are built to test the functionality of a code unit to ensure that it preforms its desired task. Integration testing test the system as a whole because it focuses on results of combining specific units of code and validating it against expected results. The output of this phase is a test plan that includes test with expected results and actual results. System Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing the system as a whole in regards to the list of project requirements and desired operating environment. Operation & Maintenance his phase primarily focuses on handing off the competed project over to the customer so that they can verify that all of their requirements have been met based on their original requirements. This phase will also validate the correctness of their requirements and if any changed need to be made. In addition, any problems not resolved in the previous phase will be handled in this section. The Waterfall Model’s linear and sequential methodology does offer a project certain advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of the Waterfall Model Simplistic to implement and execute for projects and/or company wide Limited demand on resources Large emphasis on documentation Disadvantages of the Waterfall Model Completed phases cannot be revisited regardless if issues arise within a project Accurate requirement are never gather prior to the completion of the requirement phase due to the lack of clarification in regards to client’s desires. Small changes or errors that arise in applications may cause additional problems The client cannot change any requirements once the requirements phase has been completed leaving them no options for changes as they see their requirements changes as the customers desires change. Excess documentation Phases are cumbersome and slow moving Learn more about the Major Process in the Sofware Development Life Cycle and Waterfall Model. Conversely, the Hare shares similar traits with the prototyping software development model in that ideas are rapidly converted to basic working examples and subsequent changes are made to quickly align the project with customers desires as they are formulated and as software strays from the customers vision. The basic concept of prototyping is to eliminate the use of well-defined project requirements. Projects are allowed to grow as the customer needs and request grow. Projects are initially designed according to basic requirements and are refined as requirement become more refined. This process allows customer to feel their way around the application to ensure that they are developing exactly what they want in the application This model also works well for determining the feasibility of certain approaches in regards to an application. Prototypes allow for quickly developing examples of implementing specific functionality based on certain techniques. Advantages of Prototyping Active participation from users and customers Allows customers to change their mind in specifying requirements Customers get a better understanding of the system as it is developed Earlier bug/error detection Promotes communication with customers Prototype could be used as final production Reduced time needed to develop applications compared to the Waterfall method Disadvantages of Prototyping Promotes constantly redefining project requirements that cause major system rewrites Potential for increased complexity of a system as scope of the system expands Customer could believe the prototype as the working version. Implementation compromises could increase the complexity when applying updates and or application fixes When companies trying to decide between the Waterfall model and Prototype model they need to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages for both models. Typically smaller companies or projects that have major time constraints typically head for more of a Prototype model approach because it can reduce the time needed to complete the project because there is more of a focus on building a project and less on defining requirements and scope prior to the start of a project. On the other hand, Companies with well-defined requirements and time allowed to generate proper documentation should steer towards more of a waterfall model because they are in a position to obtain clarified requirements and have to design and optimal solution prior to the start of coding on a project.

    Read the article

  • Book Review: Oracle ADF 11gR2 Development Beginner's Guide

    - by Grant Ronald
    Packt Publishing asked me to review Oracle ADF 11gR2 Development Beginner's Guide by Vinod Krishnan, so on a couple of long flights I managed to get through the book in a couple of sittings. One point to make clear before I go into the review.  Having authored "The Quick Start Guide to Fusion Development: JDeveloper and Oracle ADF", I've written a book which covers the same topic/beginner level.  I also think that its worth stating up front that I applaud anyone who has gone  through the effort of writing a technical book. So well done Vinod.  But on to the review: The book itself is a good break down of topic areas.  Vinod starts with a quick tour around the IDE, which is an important step given all the work you do will be through the IDE.  The book then goes through the general path that I tend to always teach: a quick overview demo, ADF BC, validation, binding, UI, task flows and then the various "add on" topics like security, MDS and advanced topics.  So it covers the right topics in, IMO, the right order.  I also think the writing style flows nicely as well - Its a relatively easy book to read, it doesn't get too formal and the "Have a go hero" hands on sections will be useful for many. That said, I did pick out a number of styles/themes to the writing that I found went against the idea of a beginners guide.  For example, in writing my book, I tried to carefully avoid talking about topics not yet covered or not yet relevant at that point in someone's learning.  So, if I was a new ADF developer reading this book, did I really need to know about ADFBindingFilter and DataBindings.cpx file on page 58 - I've only just learned how to do a drag and drop simple application so showing me XML configuration files relevant to JSF/ADF lifecycle is probably going to scare me off! I found this in a couple of places, for example, the security chapter starts on page 219 but by page 222 (and most of the preceding pages are hands-on steps) we're diving into the web.xml, weblogic.xml, adf-config.xml, jsp-config.xml and jazn-data.xml.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't know this, but I feel you have to get people on a strong grounding of the concepts before showing them implementation files.  If having just learned what ADF Security is will "The initialization parameter remove.anonymous.role is set to false for the JpsFilter filter as this filter is the first filter defined in the file" really going to help me? The other theme I found which I felt didn't work was that a couple of the chapters descended into a reference guide.  For example page 159 onwards basically lists UI components and their properties.  And page 87 onwards list the attributes of ADF BC in pretty much the same way as the on line help or developer guide, and I've a personal aversion to any sort of help that says pretty much what the attribute name is e.g. "Precision Rule: this option is used to set a strict precision rule", or "Property Set: this is the property set that has to be applied to the attribute". Hmmm, I think I could have worked that out myself, what I would want to know in a beginners guide are what are these for, what might I use them for...and if I don't need to use them to create an emp/dept example them maybe it’s better to leave them out. All that said, would the book help me - yes it would.  It’s obvious that Vinod knows ADF and his style is relatively easy going and the book covers all that it has to, but I think the book could have done a better job in the educational side of guiding beginners.

    Read the article

  • Minimum team development sizes

    - by MarkPearl
    Disclaimer - these are observations that I have had, I am not sure if this follows the philosophy of scrum, agile or whatever, but most of these insights were gained while implementing a scrum scenario. Two is a partnership, three starts a team For a while I thought that a team was anything more than one and that scrum could be effective methodology with even two people. I have recently adjusted my thinking to a scrum team being a minimum of three, so what happened to two and what do you call it? For me I consider a group of two people working together a partnership - there is value in having a partnership, but some of the dynamics and value that you get from having a team is lost with a partnership. Avoidance of a one on one confrontation The first dynamic I see missing in a partnership is the team motivation to do better and how this is delivered to individuals that are not performing. Take two highly motivated individuals and put them together and you will typically see them continue to perform. Now take a situation where you have two individuals, one performing and one not and the behaviour is totally different compared to a team of three or more individuals. With two people, if one feels the other is not performing it becomes a one on one confrontation. Most people avoid confrontations and so nothing changes. Compare this to a situation where you have three people in a team, 2 performing and 1 not the dynamic is totally different, it is no longer a personal one on one confrontation but a team concern and people seem more willing to encourage the individual not performing and express their dissatisfaction as a team if they do not improve. Avoiding the effects of Tuckman’s Group Development Theory If you are not familiar with Tuckman’s group development theory give it a read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuckman's_stages_of_group_development) In a nutshell with Tuckman’s theory teams go through these stages of Forming, Storming, Norming & Performing. You want your team to reach and remain in the Performing stage for as long as possible - this is where you get the most value. When you have a partnership of two and you change the individuals in the partnership you basically do a hard reset on the partnership and go back to the beginning of Tuckman’s model each time. This has a major effect on the performance of a team and what they can deliver. What I have seen is that you reduce the effects of Tuckman's theory the more individuals you have in the team (until you hit the maximum team size in which other problems kick in). While you will still experience Tuckman's theory with a team of three, the impact will be greatly reduced compared to two where it is guaranteed every time a change occurs. It's not just in the numbers, it's in the people One final comment - while the actual numbers of a team do play a role, the individuals in the team are even more important - ideally you want to keep individuals working together for an extended period. That doesn't mean that you never change the individuals in a team, or that once someone joins a team they are stuck there - there is value in an individual moving from team to team and getting cross pollination, but the period of time that an individual moves should be in month's or years, not days or weeks. Why? So why is it important to know this? Why is it important to know how a team works and what motivates them? I have been asking myself this question for a while and where I am at right now is this… the aim is to achieve the stage where the sum of the total (team) is greater than the sum of the parts (team members). This is why we form teams and why understanding how they work is a challenge and also extremely stimulating.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >