Peter Provost's Geek Noise

Time 2021-01-13 01:04:15

Web Name: Peter Provost's Geek Noise

WebSite: http://www.peterprovost.org

ID:165272

Keywords:

Provost,Peter,Noise,

Description:

Recently I ve been playing around a lot with JavaScript modules. Theparticular use case I ve been thinking about is the creation of a large complexJavaScript library in a modular and sensible way. JavaScript doesn t really dothis very well. It does it so poorly, in fact, that a sizeable number ofprojects are all done in a single file. I did fine a number that used fileconcatenation to assemble the output scrpit, but this seems like a stone-agetechnique to me.This led me to look at the two competing JavaScript module techniques:Asynchronous Module Definition (AMD) and CommonJS (CJS). AMD is thetechnique used in RequireJS) and CommonJS is the technique used bynodejs. Last month I wrote an article for Visual Studio Magazine called, What ReallyMatters in Developer Testing that I wanted to share with my readers here.Note: They changed the title and made a few other tweaks here and there, so thisis my original manuscript as opposed to the edited and published version. Enjoy!If you d prefer, you can read the published article here:http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/08/01/what-really-matters-in-developer-testing.aspx?m=1 For a couple of weeks I ve been playing around with some of the updated tools Iuse to make this blog. Back in April 2012, I pulled all of mycontent out of a server-side ASP.NET blog engine and moved toJekyll and Octopress. Honestly, I can t see myselfgoing back.But it has been more than a year since I created the current skin, and it wastime for change. Also, Jekyll has matured a lot and many of the thingsthat Octopress brought to the table are no longer needed. So I decided to killtwo birds with one stone and update the whole thing generator and skin.Of course I want a responsive layout, and for a long time my go-to frameworkhas been Twitter Bootstrap. But TWBS has a few issues that have started to bugme, most notably the way it handles font-sizes. So I decided to begin an investigationof available frameworks and toolsets.Update 2013-08-29: We got mentioned in This Week on Channel 9 today. Woot!This morning I did an interview on Radio TFS, hostedby Martin Woodward and Greg Duncan. Thetopic was What have you been working on since Visual Studio 2012 , and we hada great time talking about all the cool stuff we ve done in the VS2012 updatesand what we re targeting for Visual Studio 2013.You can download listen to the interview here:Episode 64: Peter Provost on Visual Studio 2013 UltimateMany thanks to Martin and Greg for having me. It was fun and I m lookingforward to doing it again so we can talk more about developer testing. This year at both TechEd North America and TechEd Europe I gave a presentationcalled Testing Untestable Code with Visual Studio Fakes . So far VS Fakes hasbeen very well received by customers, and most people seemed to understand myfeelings about when (and when not) to use Shims (see Part 2 for more onthis). But one thing that has consistently come up has been questions aboutBehavioral Verification.I talked about this briefly in Part 1 of this series, but let me rehash afew of the important points: Stubs are dummy implementations of interfaces or abstract classes that youuse while unit testing to provide concrete, predictable instances to fulfillthe dependencies of your system under test. Mocks are Stubs that provide the ability to verify calls on the Stub,typically including things like the number of calls made, the argumentspassed in, etc.With Visual Studio Fakes, introduced in Visual Studio 2012 Ultimate, we areproviding the ability to generate fast running, easy to use Stubs, but they arenot Mocks. They do not come with any kind of behavioral verification builtin. But as I showed at TechEd Europe, there are hooks available in theframework that allow one to perform this kind of verification. This post willshow you how they work and how to use them to create your own Mocks.I know this post is probably going to make a lot of people say, Holy crap, man.If you need that much of a system, you get too much email. All I can say is Guilty as charged, but I know I m not the only one with this problem. So if youfind this useful, great. If not, move on.I ve long been a fan of the whole Inbox Zero idea. While the concept ofusing other kinds of task lists (e.g. Outlook Tasks, Trello or Personal Kanban)is nice, in my experience the Inbox is a much more natural place to keep trackof the things I need to do. Like it or not, a large number of us in the techsector use email as our primary personal project management system. I don tthink this is just a Microsoft PM thing, but certainly the amount of emailthat happens here, in this role, makes it more the case. Near the end of the development cycle for Visual Studio 2012, a group of folksin the VSALM team (led by my very creative manager Tracey Trewin) came up withthis cool animated video introducing some of the great new features in VisualStudio 2012 Ultimate. I think it is pretty cool, and even pretty funny, so Iwanted to share it with you all. In my last post I focused on how to unit test a new Visual Studio 2012 RCASP.NET Web API project. In general, it was pretty straightforward, but when Ihad Web API methods that needed to return an HttpResponseMessage, it got alittle harder.If you recall, I decided to start with the Creating a Web API that Supports CRUD Operations tutorial and theprovided solution that came with it. That project did not use any form ofdependency inversion to resolve the controller s need for aProductRepository. My solution in that post was to use manual dependencyinjection and a default value. But in the real world I would probably reach fora dependency injection framework to avoid having to do all the resolutionwiring throughout my code.In this post I am going to convert the manual injection I used in the last postto one that uses the Ninject framework. Of course you can use any otherframework you wanted like Unity, Castle Windsor, StructureMap,etc. but the code that adapts between it and ASP.NET Web API will probablyhave to be different. A couple of days ago a colleague pinged me wanting to talk about unittesting an ASP.NET Web API project. In particular he was having ahard time testing the POST controller, but it got me thinking I neededto explore unit testing the new Web API stuff.Since it is always fun to add unit tests to someone else s codebase, I decidedto start by using the tutorial called Creating a Web API that Supports CRUD Operations and the provided solution available on www.asp.net. I ve been working on a series of posts about authoring a new unit test pluginfor Visual Studio 2012, but today my friend Matthew Manela, author of theChutzpah test plugin, sent me a post he did a few days ago that discussesthe main interfaces he had to use to make his plugin.The Chutzpah plugin runs JavaScript unit tests that are written in either theQUnit or Jasmine test frameworks. Since JavaScript files don t get compiledinto a DLL or EXE, he had to create custom implementations of what we call atest container. About Me Peter Provost is a life-long-learner, hacker, maker, agilista, musician and heavy metal fan. He lives in Colorado with his wife and two children and works as a Program Manager Lead on Microsoft's Visual Studio ALM tools. Contact Info All content on this blog are provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confer no rights. Content on this site represents my opinions and do not reflect the opinion of my employer or sponsor(s).

TAGS:Provost Peter Noise 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Recently I’ve been playing around a lot with JavaScript modules. The particular use case I’ve been thinking about is the creation of a …

Hot Websites