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
how to choose between these two automation tool how Squish is better tool
These tools are simply different and its up to you to decide which suites better your needs & budget:
Appium
open-sourced and it costs nothing.
no support engineers to help you with developing tests and telling how to use Appium in a better way. Its only you to search information in docs and forum, ask questions and spend your own time.
no test recorder, you can simulate similar actions and test locators with appium-desktop, but thats it
requires knowledge of at least 1 programming language (java, python, js, ruby, etc.) to write the tests.
SQUISH
proprietary software with individual licence costing ~7k EUR a year
you can contact support engineers, you already paying for it.
test recorder will help in case you are not familiar with programming
In terms of stability & easy to use it more person & application specific, so I would say: check the points above and made your choice.
Related
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
Is there any standard way to build developer, just making the developers understand the code easily after delivering, if you have sample it's better
If you want to know how to make your code better, you need to read about SOLID and other object-oriented design patterns.
There are no official Apple developer programming style guides.
I.e.: no official "Programming Standards" exist.
Standard only exist in terms of UI, external appearance of your application.
Normal software development criteria apply:
commenting
using software patterns appropriately, as pointed out in another answer, SOLID makes a lot of sense. Just in order to understand Apple Frameworks you need to know software patterns: delegation, visitor, proxy, etc.
document requisites and change requests, api and architecture if the app is complex
don't rely too much on bug tracking, these tend to be abused (change requests marked as bugs) and might add too much complexity of their own (JIIRA).
your organization may adopt an existing programming "quality standard" and adapt it to iOS development. ITIL is and ISO are usually overkill.
Sometimes it makes no sense to over-optimize and over-engineer everything, including your code and programming standards.
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 1 year ago.
Improve this question
From what I can tell from online forums and posts, one of the main focuses of BDD/ATDD seems to be on discussion and ensuring that the customer, developers, testers and other relevant parties are involved in the understanding what the system must do.
Question 1: Do BDD/ATDD stories replace the need for traditional requirement specifications, such as the those captured using the Volere Template?
Because the traditional requirement specifications are one of the key inputs for developers and testers, traditional requirement specifications tend to be comprehensive.
Question 2: Should BDD/ATDD stories also be comprehensive enough to allow a system to be fully tested?
Question 1: Instead of looking at this question as a black-and-white situation, we should better understand how these two requirements capture methods get along with each other. Writing a story in the BDD/ATDD methodologies, or in Scrum for example, does not imply removing the templates like volere off the table. If we take a look at the volere requirements specification here, we can see that most of the information regards to project-related issues, and the shell used for functional requirements is far from being different to a story. They just have different information, not exclusive one.
Question 2: Here we have the advantage coming from the methodology itself. BDD comes from TDD, we can more or less rely on the test-first oriented process to allow the team to test the system. But, as I mentioned in question 1, making a BDD/ATDD story more comprehensive is not a sin, and wouldn't compromise the general idea of the story. This would also prove useful when interacting with more experienced clients.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm still relatively new to iOS development and also an absolute stranger to any kind of testing that is not compile, run, and check whatever comes to your mind.
This is obviously a weakness on any developer's profile and I'm decided to get ride of it now that interesting, real projects are coming my way.
In my quest to look for the best approach to go from 0 to 100 as soon (and well) as possible I'm coming to the specialized community to get your feedback.
At the same time I'm asking for your tips I'm also getting into Amazon to look for well-reviewed books on the subject and Google to get the rest. I'm just coming here to gather the feedback of those willing to spare a minute or to so I can probably hit jackpot with a great advise and better plan my learning strategy.
Thats right. For my job testing and test driven development is indispensable.
I often use Java and JUnit, but for Objective-C and XCode I think this screencast is a very good start: http://qualitycoding.org/objective-c-tdd/
Since I watch this screencast I use OCHamcrest and OCMockito (both explaind in this screencast) as well as SenTestingKitAsync for testing asynchronous functions.
I think the Clean Code book is a must have for every developer. There is a chapter about testing.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have taken interest in basic hardware interaction with software.
What's a good language to start learning to control hardware? Can Java do the job?
As others have suggested, C or C++ is the "Proper" way to start as interacting with hardware can be done very directly due to the pointer structure (You can access arbitrary memory adresses).
If you haven't used C or C++ before i would suggest that you tried an arduino board as it would give you the feel of the C syntax and at the same time give you a very well documented board to play around with.
http://arduino.cc/
You should even be able to interface to the board in Java and C#
http://playground.arduino.cc/Interfacing/Java
http://playground.arduino.cc/Interfacing/csharp
This depends on the platform. If you have a good java API for your device, it works well enough. In general though C or C++ are the languages of choice when it comes to hardware. The reason for that is that they are able to directly access arbitrary memory addresses through the pointer construct. This is in most cases the way to interact with hardware. This is not directly possible in java.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'd like to start using continuous integration in my personal projects to get experience with the techniques and concepts. The problem is that my programming poison runs to the non-mainstream (to put it mildly) with the bulk of my work being in Erlang.
What continuous integration systems are capable of dealing with non-mainstream languages, chief among them, in my case, Erlang? How easy are they to set up, configure and run?
At this point I'd recommend Jenkins. It is easy to setup and configure, there are lots of help online and basic support with the common Erlang test tools.
See Stack Overflow question Continuous integration server for Erlang code for basic information about how to intergrate eunit and common test into Jenkins.
We are using Jenkins-CI in the etorrent project and that seem to work really well. We have a number of virtual machines implementing different operating systems on which we run the system and then carry out tests.