search for: testabl

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

...res about those changes and tests are added that use the new DataLayout. This makes perfect sense to me - if you want the mid-level optimizer to be aware of this, then it makes sense for it to be part of DataLayout. Question though: given that approach, wouldn’t that make this whole thing in-tree-testable? What would not be testable given the appropriate data layout extensions? -Chris

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 cod...

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

...mbuild as i do on Fedora for packages like dovecot-2.2.15-3.fc20.20141025.rh.x86_64 or postfix-2.11.3-1.fc20.20141020.rh.x86_64? > > your Gentoo is nice in a small environment > > on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his own repo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups > Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a single server compiling packages then made available to downstream computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple of these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal bin...

...lanned to add important functionality, such as linking against archives, universal binaries, dylibs, and tbd files, performing subsection splitting (atomization), and producing dylibs. The follow-ups should give a good sense of the overall design while still keeping each piece easily reviewable and testable individually. Our end goal is to create a full-featured Mach-O linker, and we’ll be working toward that goal over the next several months (and years, in all likelihood). We’d appreciate feedback and reviews. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http:/...

...ompliant one, and I think that it would go better with the general philosophy of GSoC. I will take this fact into consideration for the revised proposal. Also, in your proposal, it looks as though you're not writing tests until > the end; tests need to be written as soon as the features are testable. > That's kind of true, but I actually planned on writing tests during feature development, it's just that these tests wouldn't cover everything and should be expanded and tested fully towards the end of GSoC. I should definitely mention that in my plan. As for the tooling suppor...

...at it would go > better with the general philosophy of GSoC. I will take this fact into > consideration for the revised proposal. > > > Also, in your proposal, it looks as though you're not writing tests until >> the end; tests need to be written as soon as the features are testable. >> > That's kind of true, but I actually planned on writing tests during > feature development, it's just that these tests wouldn't cover everything > and should be expanded and tested fully towards the end of GSoC. I should > definitely mention that in my plan. &gt...

...han trying to get full feature coverage. In my experience, coding tests and high-quality warning/error messages takes more time than coding the feature itself. Also, in your proposal, it looks as though you're not writing tests until the end; tests need to be written as soon as the features are testable. Regarding motivation, I would also like to bring the same kind of "tooling" (analysis and transformation) support available in Clang to Fortran. Not that this specifically impacts your project, but I think is an important part of the longer-term motivation for developing an LLVM Fortra...

...of variation in RDA Call: varpart(Y = AZ, X = OeAF, Acker, Gruen) Explanatory tables: X1: OeAF X2: Acker X3: Gruen No. of explanatory tables: 3 Total variation (SS): 239101 Variance: 1811.4 No. of observations: 133 Partition table: Df R.square Adj.R.square Testable [a+d+f+g] = X1 29 0.55103 0.42463 TRUE [b+d+e+g] = X2 11 0.12135 0.04147 TRUE [c+e+f+g] = X3 9 0.23870 0.18300 TRUE [a+b+d+e+f+g] = X1+X2 40 0.64676 0.49318 TRUE [a+c+d+e+f+g] = X1+X3 38 0.59086 0.42546 TRUE [b+c+d+e+f+g] = X2...

...asonable to me since a driver can >> look at the struct page but what if a driver needs to fault in a page from >> another device's private memory? Should it call handle_mm_fault()? > > Obviously no driver cared for that so far. Once we have test cases > for that and thus testable code we can add code to fault it in from > hmm_vma_handle_pte. > I'm OK with the series. I think I would have been less confused if I looked at patch 4 then 3.

...default 1 > batch_max = 200 Ok, the router cannot check the existence of the user. check_local_user won't help you, as long as the $local_part is not a system user locally. Basically you got 2 possibilities: a) check in the routing stage by accessing the user database -> testable with: exim -bv user at exampl.com b) check in the transport stage by using a callout -> testable with: swaks ? --pipe 'exim -bhc i.i.i.i' a) Routing stage You need to interact with the user database dovecot uses. Either you access the user database directory (flat file, LDAP...

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

...better with the general philosophy of GSoC. I will take this fact into >> consideration for the revised proposal. >> >> >> Also, in your proposal, it looks as though you're not writing tests until >>> the end; tests need to be written as soon as the features are testable. >>> >> That's kind of true, but I actually planned on writing tests during >> feature development, it's just that these tests wouldn't cover everything >> and should be expanded and tested fully towards the end of GSoC. I should >> definitely mention...