I'm writing some unit tests for my MVC application but I have some trouble about common sense.
So, I have a function in my model to test called add_Member. I'm using CodeIgniter that turns empty inputs ($_POST) to 0. In mysql, 0 values are not considered as NULL values so the constraint NOT NULL on my column (ME_Email in this example) can't be applied.
In my controller, I'm checking if my field $_POST['email'] is not empty and if it's a valid email. I do that before calling my add_Member function from my model.
My question is, do I need to test an empty post value in my add_Member ?
Thanks for answers
It's a good practice to test all the methods in your app. If you are gonna make any refactoring later, this will help you or if you deside just to extend this functionality in other classes. Also, this test can help you in the debbing process. My kind advice is to try to test all methods and functionalities.
Related
I trying access to value Carrier by taking value from shipping_id. I testing queries at https://www.jsonquerytool.com/. If I type key by hand $.shipping_methods["11"] or $.shipping_methods.11I receive correct result ["Carrier"]. But I have problem with taking key value from shipping_id field. I was trying with many variations of this $.shipping_methods[$.shipping_id] but without success. It's possible with pure jsonPath?
{
"shipping_id":"11",
"shipping_methods":{
"10":"Post",
"11":"Carrier"
}
}
Depending on the JSON-Path implementation/environment you are using this may or may not be possible. This is because the feature you are asking for is not of the proposed standard, though some libraries have features that enable queries like that, e.g. in JSONPath-Plus you could use #property and #parent (I had no success using #root) - but those are 'extensions':
$.shipping_methods[?(#property == #parent.shipping_id)]
You can test this online here.
The page you have linked is using JSPath under the hood, and I cannot see any of the required features mentioned in the readme. It would be simpler to drill down in a general programming language that hosts the JSON-Path engine but not sure if this is an option here.
While working on log Queries in an arm template, I stuck with how to pass parameter values or variable values in the log Query.
parameters:
{
"resProviderName":
{
"value": "Microsoft.Storage"
}
}
For Eg:
AzureMetrics | where ResourceProvider == **parameters('resProviderName')** | where Resource == 'testacc'
Here I am facing an error like, it was taking parameters('resProviderName') as a value and it was not reading value from that particular parameter "resProviderName" and my requirement is to take the values from parameters or variables and should not hardcode like what I did in the above query as Resource=='testacc'.
Do we have any option to read the values from either parameters or variables in the log query?
If so, please help on this issue.
The answer to this would depend on what this query segment is a part of, and how your template is structured.
It appears that you're trying to reference a resource in the query. It is best to use one of the many available template resource functions if you want the details of the resource like its resourceID (within the resources section). When referencing a resource that is deployed in the same template, provide the name of the resource through a parameter. When referencing a resource that isn't deployed in the same template, fetch the resource ID.
Also, I'd recommend referring to the ARM snippet given this example to understand how queries can be constructed as custom variables as opposed to the other way round. According to ARM template best practices, variables should be used for values that you need to use more than once in a template. If a value is used only once, a hard-coded value makes your template easier to read. For more info, please take a look at this doc.
Hope this helps.
This is an old question but I bumped into this while searching for the same issue.
I'm much more familiar with Bicep templates so what I did to figure out was to create a Bicep template, construct the query by using the variables and compile it. This will generate a ARM template and you can analyze it.
I figured out you can use both concat or format functions in order to construct your query using variables.
I preferred the format one since it looks more elegant and readable (also, Bicep build generates the string using the format function).
So based on this example, the query would be something like this:
query: "[format('AzureMetrics | where ResourceProvider == {0} | where Resource == ''testacc'' ', parameters('resProviderName') )]"
Don't forget to escape the ' in the ARM template which you do by doubling the single quote.
I hope this helps some people.
André
I've a function which is called from different components, .cfms or remotely. It returns the results of a query.
Sometimes the response from this function is manually inspected - a person may want to see the ID of a specific record so they can use it elsewhere.
The provided return formats, being wddx, json, plain all aren't very easily readable for a layman.
I'd love to be able to create a new return format: dump, where the result first writeDumped and then returned to the caller.
I know there'd be more complicated ways of solving this, like writing a function dump, and calling that like a proxy by providing the component, function and parameters so it can call that function and return the results.
However I don't think it's worth going that far. I figured it'd be great if I could just write a new return format, because that's just... intuitive and nice, and I may also be able to use that technique to solve different problems or improve various workflows.
Is there a way to create custom function returnFormats in ColdFusion 10 or 11?
(From comments)
AFAIK, you cannot add a custom returntype to a cffunction, but take a look at OnCFCRequest. Might be able to use it to build something more generic that responds differently whenever a custom URL parameter is passed, ie url.returnformat=yourType. Same net effect as dumping and/or manipulating the result manually, just a little more automated.
From the comments, the return type of the function is query. That being the case, there is simply no need for a custom return format. If you want to dump the query results, do so.
queryVar = objectName.nameOfFunction(arguments);
writeDump (queryVar);
I am new to Cakephp and started with cake3.
A question arises on me is that which approach is the best from the performance sense to get an instance of a table in CakePHP-3.0 which is not a controller's default one between loadModel or TableRegistry.
Such as:
1. $this->loadModel('Articles');
OR
2. TableRegistry::get('Articles');
I read Cake-Doc for loadModel and TableRegistry. Confusion comes from here
Thanks in advance
When in a controller, it is better to use loadModel(). The reason is that it is easier to mock when doing unit testing.
It also sets the $this->[MyTable] variable according to the table that has be loaded.
I'm writing a web application (in Python, not that it matters). One of the features is that people can leave comments on things. I have a class for comments, basically like so:
class Comment:
user = ...
# other stuff
where user is an instance of another class,
class User:
name = ...
# other stuff
And of course in my template, I have
<div>${comment.user.name}</div>
Problem: Let's say I allow people to post comments anonymously. In that case comment.user is None (undefined), and of course accessing comment.user.name is going to raise an error. What's the best way to deal with that? I see three possibilities:
Use a conditional in the template to test for that case and display something different. This is the most versatile solution, since I can change the way anonymous comments are displayed to, say, "Posted anonymously" (instead of "Posted by ..."), but I've often been told that templates should be mindless display machines and not include logic like that. Also, other people might wind up writing alternate templates for the same application, and I feel like I should be making things as easy as possible for the template writer.
Implement an accessor method for the user property of a Comment that returns a dummy user object when the real user is undefined. This dummy object would have user.name = 'Anonymous' or something like that and so the template could access it and print its name with no error.
Put an actual record in my database corresponding to a user with user.name = Anonymous (or something like that), and just assign that user to any comment posted when nobody's logged in. I know I've seen some real-world systems that operate this way. (phpBB?)
Is there a prevailing wisdom among people who write these sorts of systems about which of these (or some other solution) is the best? Any pitfalls I should watch out for if I go one way vs. another? Whoever gives the best explanation gets the checkmark.
I'd go with the first option, using an if switch in the template.
Consider the case of localization: You'll possibly have different templates for each language. You can easily localize the "anonymous" case in the template itself.
Also, the data model should have nothing to do with the output side. What would you do in the rest of the code if you wanted to test whether a user has a name or not? Check for == 'Anonymous' each time?
The template should indeed only be concerned with outputting data, but that doesn't mean it has to consist solely of output statements. You usually have some sort of if user is logged in, display "Logout", otherwise display "Register" and "Login" case in the templates. It's almost impossible to avoid these.
Personally, I like for clean code, and agree that templates should not have major logic. So in my implementations I make sure that all values have "safe" default values, typically a blank string, pointer to a base class or equivalent. That allows for two major improvements to the code, first that you don't have to constantly test for null or missing values, and you can output default values without too much logic in your display templates.
So in your situation, making a default pointer to a base value sounds like the best solution.
Your 3rd option: Create a regular User entity that represents an anonymous user.
I'm not a fan of None for database integrity reasons.