Search Results

Search found 9492 results on 380 pages for 'logic unit'.

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

Page 81/380 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

  • Wrapping text and div as a unit

    - by mathee
    I have the following that I would like wrapped as units. <div class='tag-box'> <a href=#>Axe Committee</a> <div class='circle'><a href=#>x</a></div> </div> The CSS for these classes are: .tag-box { display:inline; } .circle { display:inline; padding-left:4px; padding-right:4px; background:rgb(196,15,24); /*dark red*/ -moz-border-radius:10px; -webkit-border-radius:10px; } .circle a { font-size:10px; text-decoration:none; color:#fff; position:relative; top:-2px; } I can have upwards of 20 or 30 of these tag-boxes displayed inline. The problem is that the wrapping will break the words from each other or even break the red circle from the link. This makes it hard to differentiate which circle belongs to which link. (In the future, each circle corresponds to a different action with respect to the link.) See below. How do I prevent this kind of wrapping from occurring?

    Read the article

  • Test assertions for tuples with floats

    - by Space_C0wb0y
    I have a function that returns a tuple that, among others, contains a float value. Usually I use assertAlmostEquals to compare those, but this does not work with tuples. Also, the tuple contains other data-types as well. Currently I am asserting every element of the tuple individually, but that gets too much for a list of such tuples. Is there any good way to write assertions for such cases?

    Read the article

  • Nested Resource testing RSpec

    - by Joseph DelCioppio
    I have two models: class Solution < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :owner, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => :user_id end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :solutions end with the following routing: map.resources :users, :has_many => :solutions and here is the SolutionsController: class SolutionsController < ApplicationController before_filter :load_user def index @solutions = @user.solutions end private def load_user @user = User.find(params[:user_id]) unless params[:user_id].nil? end end Can anybody help me with writing a test for the index action? So far I have tried the following but it doesn't work: describe SolutionsController do before(:each) do @user = Factory.create(:user) @solutions = 7.times{Factory.build(:solution, :owner => @user)} @user.stub!(:solutions).and_return(@solutions) end it "should find all of the solutions owned by a user" do @user.should_receive(:solutions) get :index, :user_id => @user.id end end And I get the following error: Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'SolutionsController GET index, when the user owns the software he is viewing should find all of the solutions owned by a user' #<User:0x000000041c53e0> expected :solutions with (any args) once, but received it 0 times Thanks in advance for all the help. Joe

    Read the article

  • Operations on bytes in C#

    - by Hooch
    Hello. I'm writing application to control LEDS on LPT. I have everything working except this. This is one small function. I have sth like that: I want to build function that will take two argument and return one number: In actual code those binary numers will be in hex. I put them there like that so that it's easier for you to visualize it. Example1: arg1 = 1100 1100 arg2 = 1001 0001 retu = 0100 1100 Example2: arg1 = 1111 1111 arg2 = 0001 0010 retu = 1110 1101 Example3: arg1 = 1111 0000 arg2 = 0010 0010 retu = 1101 0000 I have no idea how this function should look like. I want it to be as fast as possible. I'll call this function 200 times per second.

    Read the article

  • Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

    - by Mendelt
    I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

    Read the article

  • Reflection in unit tests for checking code coverage

    - by Gary
    Here's the scenario. I have VO (Value Objects) or DTO objects that are just containers for data. When I take those and split them apart for saving into a DB that (for lots of reasons) doesn't map to the VO's elegantly, I want to test to see if each field is successfully being created in the database and successfully read back in to rebuild the VO. Is there a way I can test that my tests cover every field in the VO? I had an idea about using reflection to iterate through the fields of the VO's as part of the solution, but maybe you guys have solved the problem before? I want this test to fail when I add fields in the VO, and don't remember to add checks for it in my tests.

    Read the article

  • MongoMapper: how do I create a model like this

    - by Vladimir R
    Suppose we have two models, Task and User. So a user can have many tasks and tasks should be able to have many users too. But, a task should also have a unique creator who is also a user. Exemple: A task in this context is like this: Task ID, Task Creator, Users who should do the task User_1 creates a task and he is then the creator. User_1 specifies User_2 and User_3 as users who should do the task. So these two last users are not creators of task. How do I create this models so that if I have a task object, I can find it's creator and users who should complete it. And how do I do, if I have a user, to find all tasks he created and all tasks he should complete. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Inserting an element into a sorted list

    - by Russell Cargill
    Ok I'm using getSharedPreferences to store my high score but before I fill it up I wanted to sort the scores into ascending order via and array, but if it finds a Score less than it in the first pos then it wont check the rest for the smallest? //function to add score to array and sort it public void addscoretoarray(int mScore){ for(int pos = 0; pos< score.length; pos++){ if(score[pos] > mScore){ //do nothing }else { //Add the score into that position score[pos] = mScore; break; } } sortArray(score); } should I call sortArray() before and after the loop to fix this problem or is there a better method to achive the same results? I should also mention that the sortArray(score) funtion is just calling Arrays.sort(score) where score is an array of mScore

    Read the article

  • Log information inside a JUnit Suite

    - by Alex Marinescu
    I'm currently trying to write inside a log file the total number of failed tests from a JUnite Suite. My testsuite is defined as follows: @RunWith(Suite.class) @SuiteClasses({Class1.class, Class2.class etc.}) public class SimpleTestSuite {} I tried to define a rule which would increase the total number of errors when a test fails, but apparently my rule is never called. @Rule public MethodRule logWatchRule = new TestWatchman() { public void failed(Throwable e, FrameworkMethod method) { errors += 1; } public void succeeded(FrameworkMethod method) { } }; Any ideas on what I should to do to achieve this behaviour?

    Read the article

  • What's the use of writing tests matching configuration-like code line by line?

    - by Pascal Van Hecke
    Hi, I have been wondering about the usefulness of writing tests that match code one-by-one. Just an example: in Rails, you can define 7 restful routes in one line in routes.rb using: resources :products BDD/TDD proscribes you test first and then write code. In order to test the full effect of this line, devs come up with macros e.g. for shoulda: http://kconrails.com/2010/01/27/route-testing-with-shoulda-in-ruby-on-rails/ class RoutingTest < ActionController::TestCase # simple should_map_resources :products end I'm not trying to pick on the guy that wrote the macros, this is just an example of a pattern that I see all over Rails. I'm just wondering what the use of it is... in the end you're just duplicating code and the only thing you test is that Rails works. You could as well write a tool that transforms your test macros into actual code... When I ask around, people answer me that: "the tests should document your code, so yes it makes sense to write them, even if it's just one line corresponding to one line" What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Why should I be using testing frameworks in PHP?

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, I have recently heard a lot of people argue about using PHP testing features like PHPunit and SimpleTest together with their IDE of choice (Eclipse for me). After googling the subject, I have still a hard time understanding the pros and cons of using these testing frameworks to speed up development. If anyone could explain this for me in a more basic level, I would really appreciate it. I am using PHP5 for the notice. Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Multiple asserts in single test?

    - by Gern Blandston
    Let's say I want to write a function that validates an email address with a regex. I write a little test to check my function and write the actual function. Make it pass. However, I can come up with a bunch of different ways to test the same function ([email protected]; [email protected]; test.test.com, etc). Do I put all the incantations that I need to check in the same, single test with several ASSERTS or do I write a new test for every single thing I can think of? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to test a site rigorously?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, I recently created a big portal site. It's time for putting it to test. How do you guys test a site rigorously? What are the ways and tools for that? Can we sort of mimic hundreds of virtual users visiting the site to see its load handling? The test should be for both security and speed Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Using Assert to compare two objects

    - by baron
    Hi everyone, Writing test cases for my project, one test I need is to test deletion. This may not exactly be the right way to go about it, but I've stumbled upon something which isn't making sense to me. Code is like this: [Test] private void DeleteFruit() { BuildTestData(); var f1 = new Fruit("Banana",1,1.5); var f2 = new Fruit("Apple",1,1.5); fm.DeleteFruit(f1,listOfFruit); Assert.That(listOfFruit[1] == f2); } Now the fruit object I create line 5 is the object that I know should be in that position (with this specific dataset) after f1 is deleted. Also if I sit and debug, and manually compare objects listOfFruit[1] and f2 they are the same. But that Assert line fails. What gives?

    Read the article

  • Rails find :conditions

    - by Sam
    I have a Reservation model that I'm searching for with three fields. The container_id must always be self.id but as confirmed and auto_confirmed only one needs to be true. I have the following but it doesn't preform what I need: Reservation.find(:all, :conditions => ['container_id = ? AND confirmed = ? OR auto_confirm = ?', self.id, true, true,]) How should I change this?

    Read the article

  • Hebbian learning

    - by Bane
    I have asked another question on Hebbian learning before, and I guess I got a good answer which I accepted, but, the problem is that I now realize that I've mistaken about Hebbian learning completely, and that I'm a bit confused. So, could you please explain how it can be useful, and what for? Because the way Wikipedia and some other pages describe it - it doesn't make sense! Why would we want to keep increasing the weight between the input and the output neuron if the fire together? What kind of problems can it be used to solve, because when I simulate it in my head, it certainly can't do the basic AND, OR, and other operations (say you initialize the weights at zero, the output neurons never fire, and the weights are never increased!)

    Read the article

  • Force orientation change in testcase with fragments

    - by user1202032
    I have an Android test project in which I wish to programatically change the orientation. My test: public class MainActivityLandscapeTest extends ActivityInstrumentationTestCase2<MainActivity> { public MainActivityLandscapeTest() { super(MainActivity.class); } private MainActivity mActivity; private Fragment mDetailFragment; private Fragment mListFragment; private Solo mSolo; @Override protected void setUp() throws Exception { super.setUp(); mSolo = new Solo(getInstrumentation(), getActivity()); mSolo.setActivityOrientation(Solo.LANDSCAPE); mActivity = getActivity(); mListFragment = (Fragment) mActivity.getSupportFragmentManager() .findFragmentById(R.id.listFragment); mDetailFragment = (Fragment) mActivity.getSupportFragmentManager() .findFragmentById(R.id.detailFragment); } public void testPreConditions() { assertTrue(mActivity != null); assertTrue(mSolo != null); assertTrue(mListFragment != null); assertTrue(getActivity().getResources().getConfiguration().orientation == Configuration.ORIENTATION_LANDSCAPE); } /** * Only show detailFragment in landscape mode */ public void testOrientation() { assertTrue(mListFragment.isVisible()); assertTrue(mDetailFragment.isVisible()); } } The layouts for the activity is in seperate folders, layout-port and layout-land layout-port fragment_main.xml layout-land fragment_main.xml In landscape mode, the layout contains 2 fragments (Detail and list) while in portrait it contains 1(List only). If the device/emulator is already in landscape mode before testing begins, this test passes. If in portrait, it fails with a NullPointerException on mListFragment and mDetailFragment. Adding a delay (waitForIdleSync() and/or waitForActivity()) did NOT seem to solve my problem. How do i force the orientation to landscape in my test, while still being able to find the fragments using findFragmentById()?

    Read the article

  • JUnit terminates child threads

    - by Marco
    Hi to all, When i test the execution of a method that creates a child thread, the JUnit test ends before the child thread and kills it. How do i force JUnit to wait for the child thread to complete its execution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Get/save parameters to an expected JMock method call?

    - by Tayeb
    Hi, I want to test an "Adapter" object that when it receives an xml message, it digest it to a Message object, puts message ID + CorrelationID both with timestamps and forwards it to a Client object.=20 A message can be correlated to a previous one (e.g. m2.correlationID =3D m1.ID). I mock the Client, and check that Adapter successfully calls "client.forwardMessage(m)" twice with first message with null correlationID, and a second with a not-null correlationID. However, I would like to precisely test that the correlationIDs are set correctly, by grabing the IDs (e.g. m1.ID). But I couldn't find anyway to do so. There is a jira about adding the feature, but no one commented and it is unassigned. Is this really unimplemented? I read about the alternative of redesigning the Adapter to use an IdGenerator object, which I can stub, but I think there will be too many objects.=20 Don't you think it adds unnecessary complexity to split objects to a so fine granularity? Thanks, and I appreciate any comments :-) Tayeb

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >