search for: testability

Hello All - This is my first post into this forum and somewhat of a newb to RoR so I''m hoping someone can help. I currently have a RoR app that runs on Ubuntu with Apache and Mysql. There are two issues I''m having and they are causing me to bang my head against the wall. First one is RAILS_ENV: If I run ruby script/console it says that my environment is development

On Nov 4, 2019, at 4:00 PM, James Molloy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > We'd be keen to help out what the community decides to do here. I personally feel it's reasonable that: > - LangRef/DataLayout is updated with semantically coherent changes. > - The midend optimizer is updated by someone who cares about those changes and tests are added that use

I like the idea of having unit tests make sure what gets logged. I found a plugin called "testable logger" at http://code.teytek.com/rails/plugins/testable_logger/ This promises to do what I''m looking for. But the code itself is not available through the links provided. The author hasn''t responded to my email. Does anyone know an alternative or has a copy of the

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rubyonrails-core/i2k7dn-jRVg/discussion What do you think about bringing the possibility to test after_commit hooks while also using transactional fixtures to rails 4? Would the approach used here https://gist.github.com/1169763 be acceptable? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.

Yesterday, I was doing a dog-and-pony for the head of the company that I work for. He asked, "Is this (a rails application) secure?" I said, "It''s as secure as anything else on the web is," and proceeded to talk about how the data was protected, how we weren''t saving anything that''s worth protecting, and so on. I''d like to have a better

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:19:25PM +0000, Tim Northover via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 19:11, Dmitriy Borisenkov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 2. Test with a dummy target. It might work if we have a group of contributors who is willing to rewrite and upstream some of their downstream tests as well as to design and implement the target

On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: > > > Am 25.12.2014 um 21:09 schrieb Benny Pedersen: > >> Robert Schetterer skrev den 2014-12-25 19:49: >>> >>> Am 18.12.2014 um 17:56 schrieb Robin Helgelin: >>>> >>>> We?re using dovecot 1.0.7 >>> >>> that version is total out

Hi all, We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using the same design as the COFF and ELF ports. This design has proven to work very well for those ports, and we’re keen to explore it for Mach-O as well. Our work is based on an initial prototype created by Peter Collingbourne and Rui Ueyama. Our initial commit is up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75382.

Thanks for the responses! > I might be wrong (I'd love to be wrong here!) but I think this is a bit > too ambitious > You might be right about it being too ambitious, it would certainly be wise to aim for less. A more polished, but less broad product is definitely better than a buggy standard compliant one, and I think that it would go better with the general philosophy of GSoC. I

Hi again. I've though more about the full standard being too ambitious, and now I fully agree with that. So I had a go at choosing the useful subset of Fortran on which I would like to work on - my update proposal can be viewed at https://gist.github.com/hyp/5434845 . Focusing on less should also improve my productivity and lead to a better summer of code project by drastically reducing the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dmitri Gribenko" <gribozavr at gmail.com> > To: "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:51 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GSoC project questions. > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Alex L <arphaman

Dear R-users I applied vegan's varpart function to partition the effects of explanatory matrices. Adj. R square for the unique fraction [a] is 0.25. Does anyone know why the decomposition by hand using rda gives me a different result for [a] (constrained proportion is 0.32)? I used cbind() for the conditional fractions, but it should be similar to condition()? Thanks very much

On 3/17/20 12:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 03:49:51PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote: >> On 3/16/20 12:32 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> Remove the code to fault device private pages back into system memory >>> that has never been used by any driver. Also replace the usage of the >>> HMM_PFN_DEVICE_PRIVATE flag in the pfns array with

Hi Marti, (Please do not send CC to my private account) Marti Markov <marti1234 at gmail.com> (Mo 21 Nov 2016 03:52:54 CET): > > Here is the router: > > virtual_aliases: ? > hide data = CHECK_VIRTUAL_ALIASES > local_user: > debug_print = "R: local_user for $local_part@$domain" > driver = accept > domains = +local_domains >

merb_dispatcher.rb:28 controller = klass.build(request.body, request.params, route, response) Why not just use a typical constructor? merb_dispatcher.rb:35 raise Merb::HTTPMethodNotAllowed.new(method, allowed) Why not check for this after the action has been dispatched to the controller? controller_mixin.rb:149 def query_parse(qs, d = ''&;'') Why not offload query parsing

If I do something like the following: class blah { File { mode => 111 } file { "/cheese": } } Will the File override stay within the class or break outside? Also, if I then do: class moo inherits blah { File { owner => bob } file { "/bobsfile": } } What will happen? Thanks, Trevor _______________________________________________ Puppet-users mailing

I have something like the following: def my_fun my_fun2 do raise Error end end I know that I can verify that the method receives my_fun2. How can I mock/stub out the example to verify that it calls raise Error? Scott

Robert Schetterer skrev den 2014-12-25 19:49: > Am 18.12.2014 um 17:56 schrieb Robin Helgelin: >> We?re using dovecot 1.0.7 > that version is total out of date , update to recent version centos is a precompiled problem :=) sorry could not resists

Hello, I've integrated the tests and AVX pitch code into my fork: https://github.com/rvelea/opus/commits/master I ran test_opus_decode and it seems to be running OK. I'll do some more measurements with VTUNE and the new pitch test in the following days and get back to you with a pull request and the data. In the meantime if you have time to give it a quick look and maybe point out any

Hi Alex, You may want to check the later versions of the standard also to check if some of your proposal is not deprecated there. The most important thing in the Fortran standard is the array support and it is a big task by itself. In my opinion, the I/O part is not the most important thing yet it is an enormous task. Usually, the Fortran routines are used externally in other computation and I/O