Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
So I've read some reports about both of these methods but I can't really grasp the dif between the two.
If anyone could sum it up for me or try to explain it I'd be ever so grateful!
BR, Fredrik
Similar to a car. If you test it, you usually drive it around or at least turn it on. If you inspect it usually you check fluids, maybe pull a spark plug, connect it to a computer and check its settings, fiddle with buttons and switches to make sure there is connectivity. During an inspection you may test the vehicle, but during a test you do not always inspect the vehicle.
Software testing is useful because it allows for a mock up of a production environment to be used in order to see if there are bugs, or errors which either throw exceptions or cause logical errors such as making relationships out of state.
Software inspection is more involved. It can involve testing, but can also involve doing code review to make sure that efficient process is used, and that the readability and maintainability is proper. It helps to make sure that features are properly decoupled, the program is running as fast as possible, and that nothing is going on behind the scenes which is undesirable.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
This might sound a very vague question, but I am hoping to get some insight from all of you who can throw some ideas so that I can move in the right direction. I have ReadyAPI license and want to develop an automation framework around it. I can of course add assertions and create tests and everything within the tool, but I am wondering if there is a way I can build keyword or data driven framework around it so that I can have reusability, ease of use, adding assertions on the fly, execution via excel, or even adding assertions via excel (not sure). I am not sure if that's going to make creation of tests even more complex. Please provide your valuable inputs!
If you already have Ready API! then you probably don't need anything else. The licence is not cheap, so you'd have to consider if you really want to spend more money buying something from Mindtree. And, looking at their list of dependencies, there's always the danger of getting bogged down in the tooling and making them work together rather than doing actual work.
Why not start small and simple by doing some data-driven test cases using Excel or even a database as your source? I've used Excel to drive test cases and to populate assertions and not encountered any problems. For any customised behaviours, there's always Groovy to help. Then, once you've maxed out the capabilities of Ready API! look at something else.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
It is really simple question.
However, really wondering.
I think even we don't software testing,
Program will work.
So, What happens if we don't software testing?
When you are so sure about the your software, why not just wait and see what happens? The simple fact you are asking the question means that you suspect you overlook something, and yes, you are. Testing software is not only about working or not, but concerns the quality of the software, including usability, performance, security, compatibility and so on and what can be improved. Are you sure color-blind people can use your software and your application is free from security vulnerabilities?
The software might work, but you won't know1 it works.
However, history has shown that all software has bugs. Your software will be tested. The question is, do you want your customers to find the bugs, or do you want to find them before the customers do?
1 of course, even with testing you won't know with 100% certainty, but you will certainly know with more than 0% certainty. If you are writing a tic-tac-toe game, a low level of certainty is quite acceptable. If you are writing software for medical equipment, nuclear reactors, or airplanes, your level of certainty needs to be much higher.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
So, I was reading about Bitcoin Script on their official documentation and found this line: "Script is simple, stack-based, and processed from left to right. It is purposefully not Turing-complete, with no loops." I tried to reason hard but couldn't understand why would someone make a language "purposefully non Turing-complete". What is the reason for this? What happens if a language become Turing Complete?
And extending further, whether "with no loops" has anything to do with the script being non-Turing Complete?
possible reasons:
security: if there is no loops program will always terminate. user can't hang up the interpreter. if, in addition there is a limit on size of the script you can have pretty restrictive time constraints. another example of a language without loops is google queries. if google allowed loops in , users would be able to kill their servers
simplicity: no loops make language much easier to read and write by non-programmers
no need: if there is no business need for it then why bother?
The main reason is because Bitcoin scripts are executed by all miners when processing/validating transactions, and we don't want them to get stuck in an infinite loop.
Another reason is that according to this message from Mike Hearn, Bitcoin script was an afterthought of Satoshi to try to incorporate a few types of transactions he had had in mind. This might explain the fact that it is not so well designed and and has little expressiveness.
Ethereum has a different approach by allowing arbitrary loops but making the user pay for execution steps.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am documenting a small itcl project. Due to shortcomings in itcl support in doxygen, and the fact that Ruff! does not support itcl, I am left with NaturalDocs and RoboDoc as the leading candidates. However, I don't want to pick an unsupported system, and was wondering which is going to be there in the long term?
What will be there in the long term? Who knows! It depends on how much people use it, really, as with all open source code systems. It should be noted that both the tools you refer to are really slow developing at this point: they do what they do and need little significant change to keep on doing it.
As far as I can see, ROBODoc requires that you do pretty much all the annotation work yourself, whereas NaturalDocs will derive a bit more for you. Not very much though; in particular, you will have to write plenty of annotations on things whichever route you use. (I've no particular experience with either though; I tend to prefer to maintain documentation in a separate file with something like doctools but that's a very different approach. I've also done nasty custom things in the past; you really don't want to use them.)
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
First and foremost, I would like to say I am very, /very/ new to programming and the like. If I decide to build this, this would probably be my first "large" project i've ever done myself.
What I am looking to build is a very simple Chat/IM client to use for the users in our office network. It would just call us their Windows logon name and use that to IM and the like. I'm talking a very simple client, with a list of names of people who are logged into the network, and option to IM them and an option to do a multiple user chat. It doesn't have to be visually stunning.
How difficult would this honestly be? Is it possible for me, someone who has very little knowledge when it comes to programming to teach myself how to build it?
If not, can you explain why this would be very difficult and what already built clients would work well for what I am using?
This is a big application. Your first parts will suck and refactoring it later will suck even more. I suggest building something small in the first place and then step from one bigger project to another.
XMPP/Jabber is IMHO the best solution for office IM. Most clients like Pidgin, Adium etc can connect to it. Every bigger company I worked for in the last years used it. Take a look at Openfire - A free open source XMPP server that you can directly connect on and which is easy to set up: http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/