TDD is one of the most popular software development techniques. I like this technology in general, and we employ it to some extent. The main thing is not to run to extremes when using it. One shouldn't fully rely on it alone forgetting other methods of software quality enhancement. In this article, I will show you how the static code analysis methodology can be used by programmers using TDD to additionally secure themselves against errors.
TDD is wonderfulTest-driven development (TDD) is a technique of software development based on iteration of very short development cycles. You write a test first which covers the change you want to introduce, then you write a code to pass the test, and finally you carry out refactoring of the new code to meet the corresponding standards. I won't dwell on what TDD is: there exist many articles on this subject which you can easily find on the Internet.
Presently, the distance learning system has been developing all the time. There is no longer a problem to get a good education remotely. Online learning has several advantages, such as learning at own pace, freedom and flexibility, accessibility, and social equality. The Web offers a variety of services to help gaining new knowledge.
This morning I found a letter in my mail:
In fact, this letter does not have any files attached, it just has 6 links (View, Download...), and they lead to the same address: http://184.108.40.206/~ru1/account.googlemail.com/viewer/13083e7f5f2c0890&
First I got to fake Google Docs with the message "document cannot be displayed", and then I was redirected to fake Google Account, where I was asked to enter a password. I guess for my own safety :). After I entered “screw you”, I got to the third fake page of docs with a list of some components.
I'm joking about Linux, of course. Nevertheless, this question really interests me. I understand that systems they work on in Microsoft are large and complex. I know very well that bugs may be detected by users only some time later after release. But I don't understand how can one simply not notice obvious bugs in the tools the developers themselves are meant to use regularly?
A few words about classic mistakes to start with. Everything's clear about them: developers may well miss them because they are not the end users. A good example of this is an error in one of the Microsoft Visio versions. It was the 2010 version, I suppose. When you started typing text in Russian into a Basic Flowchart block, it was being typed back to front. I can understand it. Someone has mixed up things and decided that words are written from right to left in the Russian language. Russian and Arabic are absolutely the same, or very similar at least. There were no Russians among testers, and the error got into the release version. I can understand this case.
Here are services, plugins, themes and other useful things that make easier working with Twitter Bootstrap.
BootSwatchr is the tool for your own Bootstrap swatches.
MSL Curiosity did the most detailed geological research on Mars
Chemistry & Mineralogy X-Ray Diffraction is one of the most accurate methods of mineralogical analysis. Due to this method it is possible to find out the mineral composition, not the chemical. For example, diamond and graphite are identical in terms of chemistry, but the different formation conditions affected the crystal lattice structure and radically changed the mineral nature. The purpose of Curiosity was just to determine what conditions led to the mineral formation on Mars in the past.
Racing simulator experts know that the computer always uses the ideal trajectory, and it does not make any mistakes, but this is only in the game. What about the real life?
There is no fragment in program code where you cannot make mistakes. You may actually make them in very simple fragments. While programmers have worked out the habit of testing algorithms, data exchange mechanisms and interfaces, it's much worse concerning security testing. It is often implemented on the leftover principle. A programmer is thinking: "I just write a couple of lines now, and everything will be ok. And I don't even need to test it. The code is too simple to make a mistake there!". That's not right. Since you're working on security and writing some code for this purpose, test it as carefully!
I decided to fool around a bit with the plugin and the picture to attract your attention. A whole lot of articles on programming regularly appear on the Internet, but most of them are unfortunately brief and all about nothing. But we are sure that our material is extremely useful, and it will be a pity if it remains unnoticed. We tell our users in every detail about how to develop plugins in C# for the Visual Studio 2005/2008/2010/2012 development environment. This material is based on our own experience and describes some subtleties you won't read anywhere about.
A couple years ago, I worked together with Ken Thompson on the interactive graphics language that was developed by Gerard Holzman in Bell Labs. I was typing quicker, therefore, I sat at the keypad, and Ken stood behind me. We worked quickly and when the compiler gave out an error, I started reflexively digging in a problem, studying the call stack, program output and launching a debugger, and so on. But Ken simply was standing nearby and thinking, ignoring me and a code, which we just wrote. Soon I noticed regularity that Ken often understood the problem faster than me and was saying, “I know, what is going on”. Usually, he was right. I understood that Ken built the mental model of a code, and when something was broken, it was the error in this model. He was thinking of how this problem could arise, so he explained what was wrong with model, or where our code could mirror this model incorrectly.