Dave,
Just a multivalued list, most recent in MV pos 1 of the time date and user
that executed the program.
10 may be too few - 1000 may be too many.
There's a lot more one could do with this - and coolest part is, once you
are calling the subroutine from everywhere - you can just change that
subroutine to get different metrics.
SORT PRC.IA STAMP USER 10:37:59 JUN 11 2009 1
PRC.IA.............. Stamp (F1) User (F2)
PRC.ACCT.PFX 11:36:37 JUN 03 2009 PRC
12:49:32 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:47:28 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:43:55 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:38:17 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:37:12 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:35:46 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:32:05 JUN 01 2009 PRC
12:27:27 JUN 01 2009 PRC
08:11:33 APR 09 2009 PRC
PRC.ACCT.VB 09:29:26 FEB 27 2009 PRC
09:29:21 FEB 27 2009 PRC
PRC.ANTIRAVEL 15:44:02 JUN 04 2009 PRC
12:52:54 APR 13 2009 PRC
12:52:02 APR 13 2009 PRC
PRC.ARCHIVE.BACKUP 15:30:07 JUN 08 2009 PRC
11:36:39 JUN 03 2009 PRC
08:15:27 JUN 02 2009 PRC
08:09:40 JUN 02 2009 PRC
08:09:40 JUN 02 2009 PRC
Enter <New line> to continue...
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Laansma [mailto:dlaan...@hubbardsupply.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:29 AM
To: sjos...@sjplus.com; U2 Users List
Subject: RE: [U2] UniVerse Unit
Susan,
What elements of data do you keep in this file?
I have the same thing in mine and I keep the last 1,000 executions. Not
sure why. Just seemed like a reasonable number.
David Laansma
IT Manager
Hubbard Supply Co.
Direct: 810-342-7143
Office:810-234-8681
Fax: 810-234-6142
www.hubbardsupply.com
"Delivering Products, Services, and Innovative Solutions"
-----Original Message-----
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Susan Joslyn
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:03 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit
If you're going to go all over the application code anyway, another idea
that I've found very useful for test mode and for general
troubleshooting is
to have a subroutine that is called at the very top of every program
that
just marks the time,date,user that ran it. When you run it from the
"test"
user this provides 'coverage' metrics. How much of our application code
actually got run during that test? And if you leave it on all the time,
you
can use it for troubleshooting whenever there's a problem....Mine keeps
the
latest 10 runs, so the file never gets any bigger than that. And you
can
clear the file anytime...
-----Original Message-----
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of
u2-users-requ...@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:56 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: U2-Users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35
Send U2-Users mailing list submissions to
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
u2-users-requ...@listserver.u2ug.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
u2-users-ow...@listserver.u2ug.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of U2-Users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: UniVerse Unit Testing (Brian Leach)
2. Re: UniVerse Unit Testing (Brian Leach)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:51 +0100
From: "Brian Leach" <br...@brianleach.co.uk>
To: "'U2 Users List'" <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org>
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Message-ID: <0mksym-1mekji3tfy-000...@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Perry,
No - most of the internally used routines had the shorter calling
interface,
externally facing ones used the extra 'Action' parameter so we could
always
extend them whilst retaining backward compatibilty.
Regards
Brian
_____
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor
Sent: 11 June 2009 13:55
To: U2 Users List
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Brian,
You say that you "designed all our server code as subroutines such that
all
of our subroutines had one of two calling interfaces". This would seem
to
mean that you built and maintained two different versions of every
external
subroutine/function. Is this correct or am I just missing something?
Thanks.
Perry
_____
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 AM
To: 'U2 Users List'
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Hi
At my last company, we spent a lot of effort on building an automated
test
rig for our software, because we had to support multiple platforms and
all
our code required full regression testing. It may be a slightly
different
scenario to yours, since we were primarily building tools, and also this
was
complicated by the fact that all of our software was client/server in
some
way, and usually involved several languages .. but here is our
experience
for what it's worth:
The bad news is that you really need to design these in from the start.
We designed all our server code as subroutines such that all of our
subroutines had one of two calling interfaces, either:
Subroutine name(InData, OutData, ErrText)
or
Subroutine name(Action, InData, OutData, ErrText)
That meant that we could generate a test rig that could feed the InData
(and
Action) and then test for the OutData and log any ErrText values.
For reports, we would capture the report text and do 'spot checks' on
the
expected results.
We also version stamped our routines, so we were certain we were testing
the
right versions, and had build scripts to recompile everything. Nothing
left
to manual operation since that opens up the opportunity for something to
get
forgotten: there is no point testing stuff to QA and then doing
something
different when you come to release! Incidentally, since this was
client/server, these involved VBScript scripts for the client end
calling
cutting paragraphs on the server along the line.
Because Universe code doesn't break down into simple blocks, unless you
want
to instrument your code and capture all your file I/O - which is
possible -
and test for that, your only sensible option is to unit test at the
subroutine/external function level.
The good news is that because UniVerse caches subroutines in memory, the
overheads to breaking out code are not as high as on systems that do
not. it
also means you end up with a more manageable system, better options for
reuse and if you adopt different client front ends, easier to migrate.
You
may also find out that your code mass reduces as you split these out,
because there is less duplication (sorry if I'm stating the obvious
here)
and so your testing domain is reduced also.
If you want clean-room regression testing, I highly recommend Virtual PC
is
it will support your OS. We kept clean images of all the platforms we
supported, which was a huge time saver. One nice thing about VPC is that
it
supports 'undo disks' which means that you can snapshot the image at a
particular point, and then any changes e.g. brought on by software loads
for
testing are physically and transparently stored outside the virtual disk
and
you choose at the end whether to commit those changes or not, making it
very
easy to go back if that version didn't pass.
Finallly, having a predictable way to load routines from dev to QA and
from
QA to live is a must - so I'll put in a very small [AD] for
mvInstaller...
Regards
Brian
_____
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor
Sent: 10 June 2009 20:33
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
The powers that be have been discussing the possibility of going to a
unit
test model for QA. As I understand the concept, portions of code are
broken
down into smaller manageable chunks against which a dedicated unit test
for
each may be run. This seems like a good idea in an object oriented
world
where methods of object can be easily invoked. This would seem less
practical in with a procedural language like BASIC.
It feels like we would end up breaking out thousands of lines of code
into
external subroutines which could then be run through a dedicated unit
test.
This would introduce significant overhead with all the CALLs to hundreds
(thousands) of external subroutines. Then there are complications such
as
variables in named common, etc.
Is anyone out there in MV land employing serious unit testing? If so,
care
to share your experiences, concerns, success stories?
Thanks.
Perry Taylor
Zirmed, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://listserver.u2ug.org/pipermail/u2-users/attachments/20090611/2231
3a8b
/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:56:15 +0100
From: "Brian Leach" <br...@brianleach.co.uk>
To: "'U2 Users List'" <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org>
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Message-ID: <0mkt2u-1meklu0yek-000...@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Jerry
Like I said, we designed our software from the ground up to fit this
scheme,
so there wasn't any conversion involved.
The result of having been bitten by a previous piece of development that
had
grown ugly..
Brian
_____
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of jpb-u2ug
Sent: 11 June 2009 14:23
To: 'U2 Users List'
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Doug and Brian,
Could you give me some numbers on how long and how many people (man
hours)
it took to do the changes? Approximately how many programs did you have
to
convert to the new way and what did you end up with?
Jerry Banker
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:55 AM
To: U2 Users List
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Brian,
You say that you "designed all our server code as subroutines such that
all
of our subroutines had one of two calling interfaces". This would seem
to
mean that you built and maintained two different versions of every
external
subroutine/function. Is this correct or am I just missing something?
Thanks.
Perry
_____
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 AM
To: 'U2 Users List'
Subject: Re: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
Hi
At my last company, we spent a lot of effort on building an automated
test
rig for our software, because we had to support multiple platforms and
all
our code required full regression testing. It may be a slightly
different
scenario to yours, since we were primarily building tools, and also this
was
complicated by the fact that all of our software was client/server in
some
way, and usually involved several languages .. but here is our
experience
for what it's worth:
The bad news is that you really need to design these in from the start.
We designed all our server code as subroutines such that all of our
subroutines had one of two calling interfaces, either:
Subroutine name(InData, OutData, ErrText)
or
Subroutine name(Action, InData, OutData, ErrText)
That meant that we could generate a test rig that could feed the InData
(and
Action) and then test for the OutData and log any ErrText values.
For reports, we would capture the report text and do 'spot checks' on
the
expected results.
We also version stamped our routines, so we were certain we were testing
the
right versions, and had build scripts to recompile everything. Nothing
left
to manual operation since that opens up the opportunity for something to
get
forgotten: there is no point testing stuff to QA and then doing
something
different when you come to release! Incidentally, since this was
client/server, these involved VBScript scripts for the client end
calling
cutting paragraphs on the server along the line.
Because Universe code doesn't break down into simple blocks, unless you
want
to instrument your code and capture all your file I/O - which is
possible -
and test for that, your only sensible option is to unit test at the
subroutine/external function level.
The good news is that because UniVerse caches subroutines in memory, the
overheads to breaking out code are not as high as on systems that do
not. it
also means you end up with a more manageable system, better options for
reuse and if you adopt different client front ends, easier to migrate.
You
may also find out that your code mass reduces as you split these out,
because there is less duplication (sorry if I'm stating the obvious
here)
and so your testing domain is reduced also.
If you want clean-room regression testing, I highly recommend Virtual PC
is
it will support your OS. We kept clean images of all the platforms we
supported, which was a huge time saver. One nice thing about VPC is that
it
supports 'undo disks' which means that you can snapshot the image at a
particular point, and then any changes e.g. brought on by software loads
for
testing are physically and transparently stored outside the virtual disk
and
you choose at the end whether to commit those changes or not, making it
very
easy to go back if that version didn't pass.
Finallly, having a predictable way to load routines from dev to QA and
from
QA to live is a must - so I'll put in a very small [AD] for
mvInstaller...
Regards
Brian
_____
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Perry Taylor
Sent: 10 June 2009 20:33
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: [U2] UniVerse Unit Testing
The powers that be have been discussing the possibility of going to a
unit
test model for QA. As I understand the concept, portions of code are
broken
down into smaller manageable chunks against which a dedicated unit test
for
each may be run. This seems like a good idea in an object oriented
world
where methods of object can be easily invoked. This would seem less
practical in with a procedural language like BASIC.
It feels like we would end up breaking out thousands of lines of code
into
external subroutines which could then be run through a dedicated unit
test.
This would introduce significant overhead with all the CALLs to hundreds
(thousands) of external subroutines. Then there are complications such
as
variables in named common, etc.
Is anyone out there in MV land employing serious unit testing? If so,
care
to share your experiences, concerns, success stories?
Thanks.
Perry Taylor
Zirmed, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://listserver.u2ug.org/pipermail/u2-users/attachments/20090611/b32f
76b7
/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
End of U2-Users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 35
***************************************
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.62/2168 - Release Date:
06/11/09
05:53:00
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.62/2168 - Release Date: 06/11/09
05:53:00
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
