[U2] Thomas Boadu is out of the office.
I will be out of the office starting 15/08/2012 and will not return until 20/08/2012. I will respond to your message when I return. If urgent please phone the helpdesk on 0038696 options 3 and1 or the IT team on 0042091 & 42106. First Capital Connect Limited. Registered in England & Wales No. 05281077. Registered office: 50 Eastbourne Terrace, Paddington, London, W2 6LG. This message is confidential. It may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the addressee. If you receive this message in error, please advise us immediately. Internet email is not necessarily secure. First does not accept responsibility for changes to any email which occur after the email has been sent. Attachments to this email could contain software viruses which could damage your system. First have checked the attachments for viruses before sending, but you should virus-check them before opening. For more information on our range of services or to book your tickets online, please visit:- http://www.firstgroup.com ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [JOB] Opportunity for non-MV techie to learn MV in Atlanta, GA
And as discussed many times, the way to create a new generation is clear and employed by every new product on the market. We can do it if only there were real desire. But this industry simply refuses to learn or follow the examples of the mainstream. More importantly, everyone including the DBMS vendors leaves Marketing to everyone else because they don't have a stomach for the expense/investment. To question a song on the matter: Is suicide really painless? T (yeah yeah, OT...) From: Brian Leach > look at the age profile for most mv programmers and that should answer > the question. This industry will die if we dont bring in a new generation > behind us. > Wjhonson wrote: > > Why new blood? What about programmers with MV experience > > already? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
... in fact if you're building, you may be better off just using a
stringbuilder and generating the delimited string. If the UniDynArray is
wrapping a string that might explain why it seems slow. (.net strings are
immutable so changing strings is a bad idea).
on the server the string manipulations are highly optimised using various
hidden pointers and hints.
Brian
Sent from my iPad
On 14 Aug 2012, at 21:25, Brian Leach wrote:
> Do you need to send an actual UniDynArray or the underlying data in a dynamic
> array format? IIIRC the UniSubroutine arguments are overloaded to use
> strings: and a dynamic array (encapsulated in a UniDynArray) is actually a
> delimited string. Fields separated by \xFe, values by \xFD, text encoding is
> 8 bit ansi so get the TextEncoding from page 1252.
>
> Now I dont know what the UniDynArray does internally to manage data but I
> have found it slow, and often better to go to the underlying string and parse
> or manipulate it directly e.g. using a List.AddRange(
> myArray.StringValue.Split('\xFd'));
>
> AFAIK the only reason the UniDynArray is constructed from the UniSession is
> because it needs to get any NLS mappings from the server (anyone know
> better?) and certainly the older COM implementation of UniObjects did not
> need a session to create a dynamic array, so you could probably just simulate
> that and ignore the parenting UniSession.
>
>
> oh and be careful about insert, you probably need replace in most cases. that
> will replace the content of an existing or non-existing element.
>
> B
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 14 Aug 2012, at 20:49, "Ravindranath Wickramanayake"
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm my Business logic sends data to Data Layer then data layer talks to
>> pick server by using UniObject.NET dll. What I'm trying to unit test is
>> this DataLayer Calls to pick to check whether it converts complex
>> objects to UniDynArrays correctly.
>>
>> So How do you abstract UniSession out? Sproc coming from pick side
>> (which I have no control over) require me to send UniDynArray.
>>
>> What I want is to send user data to a UniDynArray. I have already
>> interfaced UniDynArray insert methods but I can't see how I could return
>> a UniDynArray without a UniSession. Is there a way you could fake
>> UniSession for unit testing purposes?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
>> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:56 AM
>> To: 'U2 Users List'
>> Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
>>
>> T
>>
>> I think we're actually talking the same thing: a separation between the
>> business logic and the client.
>> Mocking the business logic calls so they don't touch the server, and
>> separately unit testing the server routines so you know they will work
>> when they will be hit.
>>
>> And I'm a believer in unit tests, or at least the discipline they
>> enforce - learned the hard way - and as a platform for integration
>> testing. Without automated testing I haven't got the resources to do a
>> full integration test for every release. Though not necessarily going
>> as far as TDD yet.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
>> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
>> Sent: 14 August 2012 01:29
>> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
>> Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
>>
>>> Brian Leach
>>> would it be better to construct a higher level wrapper for your
>> business
>>> functions and mock those? the UO libraries are quite low level: its
>> a bit
>>> like mocking ado.net rather than your db calls.
>>
>>> From: Ravindranath
>>> Thanks for the reply. I am trying to do higher level wrappers to
>> hide
>>> those UniObject stuff but the problem is in order to to get
>> UniDynArray it
>>> has to have UniSession. [snip]
>>
>>
>> Brian, I was going to suggest the same thing. But this is one of the
>> differences between unit testing an application and mocking, which will
>> allow a unit test to run completely in test mode without actually
>> calling to the server within the application code. Ravi could abstract
>> his code out for the test but that very process could be considered an
>> invalidation of the test.
>>
>> Despite the latest craze around unit testing and the entire industry
>> that it's spawned, I still find applications I use to be as crappy as
>> they've always been, so I'm not as enamored with unit tests or mocking
>> as many others. When working on a GUI project I try to get the BASIC app
>> developers to handle everything there while I intentionally remain
>> ignorant of their inner processes. Once my clients get the hang of this
>> they really enjoy the process - the BASIC developers regain their sense
>> of self-confidence as they realize that a GUI doesn't threaten their
>> jobs. We interface through well-defined BASIC calls. It's he
Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
Do you need to send an actual UniDynArray or the underlying data in a dynamic
array format? IIIRC the UniSubroutine arguments are overloaded to use strings:
and a dynamic array (encapsulated in a UniDynArray) is actually a delimited
string. Fields separated by \xFe, values by \xFD, text encoding is 8 bit ansi
so get the TextEncoding from page 1252.
Now I dont know what the UniDynArray does internally to manage data but I have
found it slow, and often better to go to the underlying string and parse or
manipulate it directly e.g. using a List.AddRange(
myArray.StringValue.Split('\xFd'));
AFAIK the only reason the UniDynArray is constructed from the UniSession is
because it needs to get any NLS mappings from the server (anyone know better?)
and certainly the older COM implementation of UniObjects did not need a session
to create a dynamic array, so you could probably just simulate that and ignore
the parenting UniSession.
oh and be careful about insert, you probably need replace in most cases. that
will replace the content of an existing or non-existing element.
Brian
Sent from my iPad
On 14 Aug 2012, at 20:49, "Ravindranath Wickramanayake"
wrote:
> Hmm my Business logic sends data to Data Layer then data layer talks to
> pick server by using UniObject.NET dll. What I'm trying to unit test is
> this DataLayer Calls to pick to check whether it converts complex
> objects to UniDynArrays correctly.
>
> So How do you abstract UniSession out? Sproc coming from pick side
> (which I have no control over) require me to send UniDynArray.
>
> What I want is to send user data to a UniDynArray. I have already
> interfaced UniDynArray insert methods but I can't see how I could return
> a UniDynArray without a UniSession. Is there a way you could fake
> UniSession for unit testing purposes?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:56 AM
> To: 'U2 Users List'
> Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
>
> T
>
> I think we're actually talking the same thing: a separation between the
> business logic and the client.
> Mocking the business logic calls so they don't touch the server, and
> separately unit testing the server routines so you know they will work
> when they will be hit.
>
> And I'm a believer in unit tests, or at least the discipline they
> enforce - learned the hard way - and as a platform for integration
> testing. Without automated testing I haven't got the resources to do a
> full integration test for every release. Though not necessarily going
> as far as TDD yet.
>
> Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
> [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
> Sent: 14 August 2012 01:29
> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
> Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
>
>> Brian Leach
>> would it be better to construct a higher level wrapper for your
> business
>> functions and mock those? the UO libraries are quite low level: its
> a bit
>> like mocking ado.net rather than your db calls.
>
>> From: Ravindranath
>> Thanks for the reply. I am trying to do higher level wrappers to
> hide
>> those UniObject stuff but the problem is in order to to get
> UniDynArray it
>> has to have UniSession. [snip]
>
>
> Brian, I was going to suggest the same thing. But this is one of the
> differences between unit testing an application and mocking, which will
> allow a unit test to run completely in test mode without actually
> calling to the server within the application code. Ravi could abstract
> his code out for the test but that very process could be considered an
> invalidation of the test.
>
> Despite the latest craze around unit testing and the entire industry
> that it's spawned, I still find applications I use to be as crappy as
> they've always been, so I'm not as enamored with unit tests or mocking
> as many others. When working on a GUI project I try to get the BASIC app
> developers to handle everything there while I intentionally remain
> ignorant of their inner processes. Once my clients get the hang of this
> they really enjoy the process - the BASIC developers regain their sense
> of self-confidence as they realize that a GUI doesn't threaten their
> jobs. We interface through well-defined BASIC calls. It's here that we
> can do a BASIC mockup of the input to their BASIC code. If that works,
> and I've done my job, the GUI will work when linked to the back-end.
> Similarly, and (Zzz...) here's the point, my GUI-side tests don't
> connect into the DBMS, so I don't need to mock that part. I keep that
> interface lightweight, use the same component for almost all DBMS
> activity, and don't need the overhead of unit tests or mocking for every
> new application. Ravi, that might be of some help to you.
>
> Good luck,
> T
>
>
> __
Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
Hmm my Business logic sends data to Data Layer then data layer talks to pick server by using UniObject.NET dll. What I'm trying to unit test is this DataLayer Calls to pick to check whether it converts complex objects to UniDynArrays correctly. So How do you abstract UniSession out? Sproc coming from pick side (which I have no control over) require me to send UniDynArray. What I want is to send user data to a UniDynArray. I have already interfaced UniDynArray insert methods but I can't see how I could return a UniDynArray without a UniSession. Is there a way you could fake UniSession for unit testing purposes? -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:56 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET T I think we're actually talking the same thing: a separation between the business logic and the client. Mocking the business logic calls so they don't touch the server, and separately unit testing the server routines so you know they will work when they will be hit. And I'm a believer in unit tests, or at least the discipline they enforce - learned the hard way - and as a platform for integration testing. Without automated testing I haven't got the resources to do a full integration test for every release. Though not necessarily going as far as TDD yet. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: 14 August 2012 01:29 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET > Brian Leach > would it be better to construct a higher level wrapper for your business > functions and mock those? the UO libraries are quite low level: its a bit > like mocking ado.net rather than your db calls. > From: Ravindranath > Thanks for the reply. I am trying to do higher level wrappers to hide > those UniObject stuff but the problem is in order to to get UniDynArray it > has to have UniSession. [snip] Brian, I was going to suggest the same thing. But this is one of the differences between unit testing an application and mocking, which will allow a unit test to run completely in test mode without actually calling to the server within the application code. Ravi could abstract his code out for the test but that very process could be considered an invalidation of the test. Despite the latest craze around unit testing and the entire industry that it's spawned, I still find applications I use to be as crappy as they've always been, so I'm not as enamored with unit tests or mocking as many others. When working on a GUI project I try to get the BASIC app developers to handle everything there while I intentionally remain ignorant of their inner processes. Once my clients get the hang of this they really enjoy the process - the BASIC developers regain their sense of self-confidence as they realize that a GUI doesn't threaten their jobs. We interface through well-defined BASIC calls. It's here that we can do a BASIC mockup of the input to their BASIC code. If that works, and I've done my job, the GUI will work when linked to the back-end. Similarly, and (Zzz...) here's the point, my GUI-side tests don't connect into the DBMS, so I don't need to mock that part. I keep that interface lightweight, use the same component for almost all DBMS activity, and don't need the overhead of unit tests or mocking for every new application. Ravi, that might be of some help to you. Good luck, T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [JOB] Opportunity for non-MV techie to learn MV in Atlanta, GA
look at the age profile for most mv programmers and that should answer the question. This industry will die if we dont bring in a new generation behind us. Brian Sent from my iPad On 14 Aug 2012, at 20:24, Wjhonson wrote: > > Changing title to JOB as jobs as not off topic. > > Why new blood? What about programmers with MV experience already? > Or are they not willing to pay that rate? > > > > -Original Message- > From: BruceHolt > To: u2-users > Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 12:18 pm > Subject: Re: [U2] [OT] Opportunity for non-MV techie to learn MV in Atlanta, > GA > > > > > > ROBERT NORMAN wrote: >> >> Please email me directly with the details. We'll see what we can do for >> them. >> >> Thanks. Robert >> >> On 8/13/2012 8:03 PM, BruceHolt wrote: >>> I am not the one with the details but can put you in touch with the one >>> who >>> does. I can say that no MV experience is required. The database is >>> UniVerse >>> with OHM software. The company will train. Good beginning salary for >>> interested candidate. >>> >>> We could certainly use new blood in our niche. >> >> ___ >> U2-Users mailing list >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> >> > > Just for further clarification, this opportunity is being offered through a > recruiter friend of mine. I am not seeking remuneration. I AM seeking new > blood for our industry! Please, only individuals interested in this > opportunity should contact me. > > Thanks. > > Bruce > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/-OT--Opportunity-for-non-MV-techie-to-learn-MV-in-Atlanta%2C-GA-tp34294905p34298467.html > Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [JOB] Opportunity for non-MV techie to learn MV in Atlanta, GA
Changing title to JOB as jobs as not off topic. Why new blood? What about programmers with MV experience already? Or are they not willing to pay that rate? -Original Message- From: BruceHolt To: u2-users Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [U2] [OT] Opportunity for non-MV techie to learn MV in Atlanta, GA ROBERT NORMAN wrote: > > Please email me directly with the details. We'll see what we can do for > them. > > Thanks. Robert > > On 8/13/2012 8:03 PM, BruceHolt wrote: >> I am not the one with the details but can put you in touch with the one >> who >> does. I can say that no MV experience is required. The database is >> UniVerse >> with OHM software. The company will train. Good beginning salary for >> interested candidate. >> >> We could certainly use new blood in our niche. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > Just for further clarification, this opportunity is being offered through a recruiter friend of mine. I am not seeking remuneration. I AM seeking new blood for our industry! Please, only individuals interested in this opportunity should contact me. Thanks. Bruce -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-OT--Opportunity-for-non-MV-techie-to-learn-MV-in-Atlanta%2C-GA-tp34294905p34298467.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] [OT] Opportunity for non-MV techie to learn MV in Atlanta, GA
ROBERT NORMAN wrote: > > Please email me directly with the details. We'll see what we can do for > them. > > Thanks. Robert > > On 8/13/2012 8:03 PM, BruceHolt wrote: >> I am not the one with the details but can put you in touch with the one >> who >> does. I can say that no MV experience is required. The database is >> UniVerse >> with OHM software. The company will train. Good beginning salary for >> interested candidate. >> >> We could certainly use new blood in our niche. > > ___ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > Just for further clarification, this opportunity is being offered through a recruiter friend of mine. I am not seeking remuneration. I AM seeking new blood for our industry! Please, only individuals interested in this opportunity should contact me. Thanks. Bruce -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-OT--Opportunity-for-non-MV-techie-to-learn-MV-in-Atlanta%2C-GA-tp34294905p34298467.html Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Fwd: Re: Mocking UniSession in .NET
I know this is a serious question with real world implications, and I know a mock isn't exactly a taunt, but I can't believe there hasn't been a single Monty Python reference in this thread. U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations - Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. - ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET
T I think we're actually talking the same thing: a separation between the business logic and the client. Mocking the business logic calls so they don't touch the server, and separately unit testing the server routines so you know they will work when they will be hit. And I'm a believer in unit tests, or at least the discipline they enforce - learned the hard way - and as a platform for integration testing. Without automated testing I haven't got the resources to do a full integration test for every release. Though not necessarily going as far as TDD yet. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: 14 August 2012 01:29 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET > Brian Leach > would it be better to construct a higher level wrapper for your business > functions and mock those? the UO libraries are quite low level: its a bit > like mocking ado.net rather than your db calls. > From: Ravindranath > Thanks for the reply. I am trying to do higher level wrappers to hide > those UniObject stuff but the problem is in order to to get UniDynArray it > has to have UniSession. [snip] Brian, I was going to suggest the same thing. But this is one of the differences between unit testing an application and mocking, which will allow a unit test to run completely in test mode without actually calling to the server within the application code. Ravi could abstract his code out for the test but that very process could be considered an invalidation of the test. Despite the latest craze around unit testing and the entire industry that it's spawned, I still find applications I use to be as crappy as they've always been, so I'm not as enamored with unit tests or mocking as many others. When working on a GUI project I try to get the BASIC app developers to handle everything there while I intentionally remain ignorant of their inner processes. Once my clients get the hang of this they really enjoy the process - the BASIC developers regain their sense of self-confidence as they realize that a GUI doesn't threaten their jobs. We interface through well-defined BASIC calls. It's here that we can do a BASIC mockup of the input to their BASIC code. If that works, and I've done my job, the GUI will work when linked to the back-end. Similarly, and (Zzz...) here's the point, my GUI-side tests don't connect into the DBMS, so I don't need to mock that part. I keep that interface lightweight, use the same component for almost all DBMS activity, and don't need the overhead of unit tests or mocking for every new application. Ravi, that might be of some help to you. Good luck, T ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
