473,898 Members | 2,415 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

C# - Attributes - Unit Tests Question

Hi

I want to place the tests needed in the code using attributes. There seems
to be enough code snippets around
for me to cover this. e.g.

// Test cases, run these here on the function and check the result

[Test, Function=CheckT ype, Args="-1,3,'flower'", Result=true]

[Test, Function=CheckT ype, Args="5,3,'pot' ", Result=true]

[Test, Function=CheckT ype, Args="99,3,'men '", Result=false]

// Function

static Boolean CheckType(int FirstArg, int SecondArg, string sType)

{

// Code in here

...

return bResult;

}

The harder part is i want to use reflection to establish the function
arguments and create on the

stack these arguments with the correct values and then call the function
trapping the returned value .

This would be fantastic as nolonger would 2 sets of code need to be
maintained, i.e. the original

functions then the test cases which exercised these functions.

The test for the function lives with the function .
Can you comment if this is possible and if there is an example great ?

C# begineer

Thanks in advance
Nov 17 '05
16 2586
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
Can you comment if this is possible and if there is an example great ?

nUnit does stuff like this.


I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.


Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 17 '05 #11


Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
>Can you comment if this is possible and if there is an example great ?
nUnit does stuff like this.

I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?


nope, don't know much about nUnit, It was just my impression from the
docs i've read. Should have added ", doesn't it?".

I have (too) extensive experience with a C++ framework called xTest, and
jUnit, ...Fixtures and Suites, setUp, tearDown,... it's all coming back
in my dreams.
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.

Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?


Especially this feature in particular, but also the frameworks in general.

Here it comes, some of it at least :)

unit-testing is *good*, it works and finds problems. how unit-test
*frameworks* are helping with that is unclear to me.

Tests are no different from any other code and should be written as
such. Test-code should not be inserted in "hot-spots" in a
test-framework -- People bend their test-code to the wierd syntax and
convetions required by the frameworks, atleast that's what i've seen happen.

Instead a test-*library* should provide some handy functionality, like
run_check(f, 1, 2, expected_result ); and run_expect(f, 1, 3,
typeof(IndexOut OfRangeExceptio n)), which will become the "test-protocol".

This is difficult in (at least) < C#2.0, since

- you need to explicitly declare and instantiate a callback that fits
the type of f
- you can not catch by Type (the type Type, understandable? ), only by
"exception-declaration"

This may have changed in C#2.0 but I haven't moved on from 1.1 yet. I
have a faint hope (from rumours and hear-say) that I will be able to use
the generics in C#2 and the implicit delegate support to implement such
a test-library. I have done it before, in C++ (thanks to the *amazing*
boost::function ) and it works like a charm.

In the mean time I have made the following observations:

There are good ways to sequentially compose operations in C#:

op1(); op2()

It is more complicated to independently compose execution, but
relatively easy in most cases:

new ThreadStart(op1 ).Start();
new ThreadStart(op2 ).Start();

Exceptions are a *blazingly* good way of signalling that something is wrong:

void CHECK(boolean b) { throw new CheckExpection( ); }

and the stack-trace tells you *exactly* what function failed, you can
then rerun the test in question setting a break-point at the failed line.

If you are running in debug-mode you can sneakily set a breakpoint in
CheckException. CheckException( ).

I don't use failure-counts anyway, it's either 0 or !0

If I want to run a specific subset of tests:

class SpecificSubsetO fTests {
public static int Main() {
#if !DEBUG
try {
#endif
// just run the tests
#if !DEBUG
} catch ( Exception e ) {
Console.WriteLi ne("EXCEPTION:\ n{0}", e);
throw;
}
#endif
}
}

--
Helge Jensen
mailto:he****** ****@slog.dk
sip:he********* *@slog.dk
-=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-
Nov 17 '05 #12


Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
>Can you comment if this is possible and if there is an example great ?
nUnit does stuff like this.

I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?


nope, don't know much about nUnit, It was just my impression from the
docs i've read. Should have added ", doesn't it?".

I have (too) extensive experience with a C++ framework called xTest, and
jUnit, ...Fixtures and Suites, setUp, tearDown,... it's all coming back
in my dreams.
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.

Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?


Especially this feature in particular, but also the frameworks in general.

Here it comes, some of it at least :)

unit-testing is *good*, it works and finds problems. how unit-test
*frameworks* are helping with that is unclear to me.

Tests are no different from any other code and should be written as
such. Test-code should not be inserted in "hot-spots" in a
test-framework -- People bend their test-code to the wierd syntax and
convetions required by the frameworks, atleast that's what i've seen happen.

Instead a test-*library* should provide some handy functionality, like
run_check(f, 1, 2, expected_result ); and run_expect(f, 1, 3,
typeof(IndexOut OfRangeExceptio n)), which will become the "test-protocol".

This is difficult in (at least) < C#2.0, since

- you need to explicitly declare and instantiate a callback that fits
the type of f
- you can not catch by Type (the type Type, understandable? ), only by
"exception-declaration"

This may have changed in C#2.0 but I haven't moved on from 1.1 yet. I
have a faint hope (from rumours and hear-say) that I will be able to use
the generics in C#2 and the implicit delegate support to implement such
a test-library. I have done it before, in C++ (thanks to the *amazing*
boost::function ) and it works like a charm.

In the mean time I have made the following observations:

There are good ways to sequentially compose operations in C#:

op1(); op2()

It is more complicated to independently compose execution, but
relatively easy in most cases:

new ThreadStart(op1 ).Start();
new ThreadStart(op2 ).Start();

Exceptions are a *blazingly* good way of signalling that something is wrong:

void CHECK(boolean b) { throw new CheckExpection( ); }

and the stack-trace tells you *exactly* what function failed, you can
then rerun the test in question setting a break-point at the failed line.

If you are running in debug-mode you can sneakily set a breakpoint in
CheckException. CheckException( ).

I don't use failure-counts anyway, it's either 0 or !0

If I want to run a specific subset of tests:

class SpecificSubsetO fTests {
public static int Main() {
#if !DEBUG
try {
#endif
// just run the tests
#if !DEBUG
} catch ( Exception e ) {
Console.WriteLi ne("EXCEPTION:\ n{0}", e);
throw;
}
#endif
}
}

--
Helge Jensen
mailto:he****** ****@slog.dk
sip:he********* *@slog.dk
-=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-
Nov 17 '05 #13
It took me a while to figure out how to use
the VS 2005 beta 2 built-in Team TestFramework,
but I'm fond of it now. Still exploring it; the walkthroughs
demo _some_ of the capability, especially the
code it generates to test private methods.

Worth d/ling the beta to experiment with, imo.
--
Grace + Peace,
Peter N Roth
Engineering Objects International
http://engineeringobjects.com
Home of Matrix.NET
"Helge Jensen" <he**********@s log.dk> wrote in message
news:43******** ******@slog.dk. ..


Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
>>Can you comment if this is possible and if there is an example great ?

nUnit does stuff like this.

I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?


nope, don't know much about nUnit, It was just my impression from the docs
i've read. Should have added ", doesn't it?".

I have (too) extensive experience with a C++ framework called xTest, and
jUnit, ...Fixtures and Suites, setUp, tearDown,... it's all coming back in
my dreams.
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.

Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?


Especially this feature in particular, but also the frameworks in general.

Here it comes, some of it at least :)

unit-testing is *good*, it works and finds problems. how unit-test
*frameworks* are helping with that is unclear to me.

Tests are no different from any other code and should be written as such.
Test-code should not be inserted in "hot-spots" in a test-framework --
People bend their test-code to the wierd syntax and convetions required by
the frameworks, atleast that's what i've seen happen.

Instead a test-*library* should provide some handy functionality, like
run_check(f, 1, 2, expected_result ); and run_expect(f, 1, 3,
typeof(IndexOut OfRangeExceptio n)), which will become the "test-protocol".

This is difficult in (at least) < C#2.0, since

- you need to explicitly declare and instantiate a callback that fits
the type of f
- you can not catch by Type (the type Type, understandable? ), only by
"exception-declaration"

This may have changed in C#2.0 but I haven't moved on from 1.1 yet. I have
a faint hope (from rumours and hear-say) that I will be able to use the
generics in C#2 and the implicit delegate support to implement such a
test-library. I have done it before, in C++ (thanks to the *amazing*
boost::function ) and it works like a charm.

In the mean time I have made the following observations:

There are good ways to sequentially compose operations in C#:

op1(); op2()

It is more complicated to independently compose execution, but relatively
easy in most cases:

new ThreadStart(op1 ).Start();
new ThreadStart(op2 ).Start();

Exceptions are a *blazingly* good way of signalling that something is
wrong:

void CHECK(boolean b) { throw new CheckExpection( ); }

and the stack-trace tells you *exactly* what function failed, you can then
rerun the test in question setting a break-point at the failed line.

If you are running in debug-mode you can sneakily set a breakpoint in
CheckException. CheckException( ).

I don't use failure-counts anyway, it's either 0 or !0

If I want to run a specific subset of tests:

class SpecificSubsetO fTests {
public static int Main() {
#if !DEBUG
try {
#endif
// just run the tests
#if !DEBUG
} catch ( Exception e ) {
Console.WriteLi ne("EXCEPTION:\ n{0}", e);
throw;
}
#endif
}
}

--
Helge Jensen
mailto:he****** ****@slog.dk
sip:he********* *@slog.dk
-=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-

Nov 17 '05 #14
It took me a while to figure out how to use
the VS 2005 beta 2 built-in Team TestFramework,
but I'm fond of it now. Still exploring it; the walkthroughs
demo _some_ of the capability, especially the
code it generates to test private methods.

Worth d/ling the beta to experiment with, imo.
--
Grace + Peace,
Peter N Roth
Engineering Objects International
http://engineeringobjects.com
Home of Matrix.NET
"Helge Jensen" <he**********@s log.dk> wrote in message
news:43******** ******@slog.dk. ..


Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
>>Can you comment if this is possible and if there is an example great ?

nUnit does stuff like this.

I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?


nope, don't know much about nUnit, It was just my impression from the docs
i've read. Should have added ", doesn't it?".

I have (too) extensive experience with a C++ framework called xTest, and
jUnit, ...Fixtures and Suites, setUp, tearDown,... it's all coming back in
my dreams.
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.

Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?


Especially this feature in particular, but also the frameworks in general.

Here it comes, some of it at least :)

unit-testing is *good*, it works and finds problems. how unit-test
*frameworks* are helping with that is unclear to me.

Tests are no different from any other code and should be written as such.
Test-code should not be inserted in "hot-spots" in a test-framework --
People bend their test-code to the wierd syntax and convetions required by
the frameworks, atleast that's what i've seen happen.

Instead a test-*library* should provide some handy functionality, like
run_check(f, 1, 2, expected_result ); and run_expect(f, 1, 3,
typeof(IndexOut OfRangeExceptio n)), which will become the "test-protocol".

This is difficult in (at least) < C#2.0, since

- you need to explicitly declare and instantiate a callback that fits
the type of f
- you can not catch by Type (the type Type, understandable? ), only by
"exception-declaration"

This may have changed in C#2.0 but I haven't moved on from 1.1 yet. I have
a faint hope (from rumours and hear-say) that I will be able to use the
generics in C#2 and the implicit delegate support to implement such a
test-library. I have done it before, in C++ (thanks to the *amazing*
boost::function ) and it works like a charm.

In the mean time I have made the following observations:

There are good ways to sequentially compose operations in C#:

op1(); op2()

It is more complicated to independently compose execution, but relatively
easy in most cases:

new ThreadStart(op1 ).Start();
new ThreadStart(op2 ).Start();

Exceptions are a *blazingly* good way of signalling that something is
wrong:

void CHECK(boolean b) { throw new CheckExpection( ); }

and the stack-trace tells you *exactly* what function failed, you can then
rerun the test in question setting a break-point at the failed line.

If you are running in debug-mode you can sneakily set a breakpoint in
CheckException. CheckException( ).

I don't use failure-counts anyway, it's either 0 or !0

If I want to run a specific subset of tests:

class SpecificSubsetO fTests {
public static int Main() {
#if !DEBUG
try {
#endif
// just run the tests
#if !DEBUG
} catch ( Exception e ) {
Console.WriteLi ne("EXCEPTION:\ n{0}", e);
throw;
}
#endif
}
}

--
Helge Jensen
mailto:he****** ****@slog.dk
sip:he********* *@slog.dk
-=> Sebastian cover-music: http://ungdomshus.nu <=-

Nov 17 '05 #15
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
nUnit does stuff like this. I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?


nope, don't know much about nUnit, It was just my impression from the
docs i've read. Should have added ", doesn't it?".


Right - no, I don't believe it does.
I have (too) extensive experience with a C++ framework called xTest, and
jUnit, ...Fixtures and Suites, setUp, tearDown,... it's all coming back
in my dreams.
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.
Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?


Especially this feature in particular, but also the frameworks in general.

Here it comes, some of it at least :)

unit-testing is *good*, it works and finds problems. how unit-test
*frameworks* are helping with that is unclear to me.


They make it very easy to write tests and then run them in an automated
manner, collecting the output in a nice form which can be attached to
build reports, etc.

How do you normally *run* your tests? With Eclipse and JUnit, I can do
it all within the IDE, debug into it easily, run as many or as few
tests as I want to etc. We have thousands of test cases over hundreds
of classes. Without using a test framework, how can I get the same
level of flexibility?
Tests are no different from any other code and should be written as
such. Test-code should not be inserted in "hot-spots" in a
test-framework -- People bend their test-code to the wierd syntax and
convetions required by the frameworks, atleast that's what i've seen happen.
Not sure what you mean here. There's no particularly weird syntax to
JUnit or NUnit - they're just straight Java or C#, potentially using
base classes which are provided by the framework.
Instead a test-*library* should provide some handy functionality, like
run_check(f, 1, 2, expected_result ); and run_expect(f, 1, 3,
typeof(IndexOut OfRangeExceptio n)), which will become the "test-protocol".
Neither of those are particularly hard to do in NUnit or JUnit.
This is difficult in (at least) < C#2.0, since

- you need to explicitly declare and instantiate a callback that fits
the type of f
- you can not catch by Type (the type Type, understandable? ), only by
"exception-declaration"

This may have changed in C#2.0 but I haven't moved on from 1.1 yet. I
have a faint hope (from rumours and hear-say) that I will be able to use
the generics in C#2 and the implicit delegate support to implement such
a test-library. I have done it before, in C++ (thanks to the *amazing*
boost::function ) and it works like a charm.

In the mean time I have made the following observations:

There are good ways to sequentially compose operations in C#:

op1(); op2()

It is more complicated to independently compose execution, but
relatively easy in most cases:

new ThreadStart(op1 ).Start();
new ThreadStart(op2 ).Start();

Exceptions are a *blazingly* good way of signalling that something is wrong:

void CHECK(boolean b) { throw new CheckExpection( ); }

and the stack-trace tells you *exactly* what function failed, you can
then rerun the test in question setting a break-point at the failed line.
And guess what - that's exactly what JUnit and NUnit do.
If you are running in debug-mode you can sneakily set a breakpoint in
CheckException. CheckException( ).

I don't use failure-counts anyway, it's either 0 or !0
Whereas I don't want to have to run the whole test suite again after
fixing one test, only to find there's another one that's failing - and
repeat that for as many tests as are failing. Usually there aren't many
(or even any) failing tests, but I still want to have a confidence
level about the rest of the code even if one fails.

Currently we've got four tests which are failing, and have been failing
for a few days while we try to find a solution. Would you suggest that
it's pointless knowing whether any *other* tests (including new ones)
have started failing over those last few days?
If I want to run a specific subset of tests:

class SpecificSubsetO fTests {
public static int Main() {
#if !DEBUG
try {
#endif
// just run the tests
#if !DEBUG
} catch ( Exception e ) {
Console.WriteLi ne("EXCEPTION:\ n{0}", e);
throw;
}
#endif
}
}


Whereas I can just select a package in Eclipse, and run all the tests
within that package and sub-packages. I've never needed to specify in
code a list of tests to run.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 17 '05 #16
Helge Jensen <he**********@s log.dk> wrote:
nUnit does stuff like this. I haven't seen anything in NUnit for that - could you point me at a
reference?


nope, don't know much about nUnit, It was just my impression from the
docs i've read. Should have added ", doesn't it?".


Right - no, I don't believe it does.
I have (too) extensive experience with a C++ framework called xTest, and
jUnit, ...Fixtures and Suites, setUp, tearDown,... it's all coming back
in my dreams.
But I have a hard time seeing the point in these frameworks.
Do you mean you can't see the point in unit testing frameworks in
general, or just this kind of feature?


Especially this feature in particular, but also the frameworks in general.

Here it comes, some of it at least :)

unit-testing is *good*, it works and finds problems. how unit-test
*frameworks* are helping with that is unclear to me.


They make it very easy to write tests and then run them in an automated
manner, collecting the output in a nice form which can be attached to
build reports, etc.

How do you normally *run* your tests? With Eclipse and JUnit, I can do
it all within the IDE, debug into it easily, run as many or as few
tests as I want to etc. We have thousands of test cases over hundreds
of classes. Without using a test framework, how can I get the same
level of flexibility?
Tests are no different from any other code and should be written as
such. Test-code should not be inserted in "hot-spots" in a
test-framework -- People bend their test-code to the wierd syntax and
convetions required by the frameworks, atleast that's what i've seen happen.
Not sure what you mean here. There's no particularly weird syntax to
JUnit or NUnit - they're just straight Java or C#, potentially using
base classes which are provided by the framework.
Instead a test-*library* should provide some handy functionality, like
run_check(f, 1, 2, expected_result ); and run_expect(f, 1, 3,
typeof(IndexOut OfRangeExceptio n)), which will become the "test-protocol".
Neither of those are particularly hard to do in NUnit or JUnit.
This is difficult in (at least) < C#2.0, since

- you need to explicitly declare and instantiate a callback that fits
the type of f
- you can not catch by Type (the type Type, understandable? ), only by
"exception-declaration"

This may have changed in C#2.0 but I haven't moved on from 1.1 yet. I
have a faint hope (from rumours and hear-say) that I will be able to use
the generics in C#2 and the implicit delegate support to implement such
a test-library. I have done it before, in C++ (thanks to the *amazing*
boost::function ) and it works like a charm.

In the mean time I have made the following observations:

There are good ways to sequentially compose operations in C#:

op1(); op2()

It is more complicated to independently compose execution, but
relatively easy in most cases:

new ThreadStart(op1 ).Start();
new ThreadStart(op2 ).Start();

Exceptions are a *blazingly* good way of signalling that something is wrong:

void CHECK(boolean b) { throw new CheckExpection( ); }

and the stack-trace tells you *exactly* what function failed, you can
then rerun the test in question setting a break-point at the failed line.
And guess what - that's exactly what JUnit and NUnit do.
If you are running in debug-mode you can sneakily set a breakpoint in
CheckException. CheckException( ).

I don't use failure-counts anyway, it's either 0 or !0
Whereas I don't want to have to run the whole test suite again after
fixing one test, only to find there's another one that's failing - and
repeat that for as many tests as are failing. Usually there aren't many
(or even any) failing tests, but I still want to have a confidence
level about the rest of the code even if one fails.

Currently we've got four tests which are failing, and have been failing
for a few days while we try to find a solution. Would you suggest that
it's pointless knowing whether any *other* tests (including new ones)
have started failing over those last few days?
If I want to run a specific subset of tests:

class SpecificSubsetO fTests {
public static int Main() {
#if !DEBUG
try {
#endif
// just run the tests
#if !DEBUG
} catch ( Exception e ) {
Console.WriteLi ne("EXCEPTION:\ n{0}", e);
throw;
}
#endif
}
}


Whereas I can just select a package in Eclipse, and run all the tests
within that package and sub-packages. I've never needed to specify in
code a list of tests to run.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 17 '05 #17

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

38
3423
by: Christoph Zwerschke | last post by:
In August 2001, there was a thread about the "Art of Unit Testing": http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/aa2bd17e7f995d05/71a29faf0a0485d5 Paul Moore asked the legitimate question why there is no hook for a "global" fixture code that is run only once for the whole TestCase, as opposed to the normal "setUp" and "tearDown" code that is run for every single test in the TestCase. A "global fixture" would be...
14
2767
by: | last post by:
Hi! I'm looking for unit-testing tools for .NET. Somthing like Java has --> http://www.junit.org regards, gicio
2
2113
by: Naveen Mukkelli | last post by:
Hi, Currently, I've got all my unit tests in a separate class in the same project. Instead of this, I'm planning to move all my tests in a separate project in a single solution. For example let "TargetProject" is the main project in a solution. My plan is to have another project, for example "TestTargetProject" that will
5
3956
by: David K Allen | last post by:
Here's my problem. Have a database interface with several methods. I created a database class to implement the interface, and a set of unit tests to test each method. Now I want to support another database provider. The implementation is very easy: I simply create a new database class, and implement all the methods using the new database provider. My question is: How do I get this same set of unit tests to run in a loop? My problem is...
72
5297
by: Jacob | last post by:
I have compiled a set og unit testing recommendations based on my own experience on the concept. Feedback and suggestions for improvements are appreciated: http://geosoft.no/development/unittesting.html Thanks.
28
1486
by: Alan Isaac | last post by:
I have a class whose instances should only receive attribute assignments for attributes that were created at inititialization. If slots are not appropriate, what is the Pythonic design for this? Thanks, Alan Isaac
176
8548
by: nw | last post by:
Hi, I previously asked for suggestions on teaching testing in C++. Based on some of the replies I received I decided that best way to proceed would be to teach the students how they might write their own unit test framework, and then in a lab session see if I can get them to write their own. To give them an example I've created the following UTF class (with a simple test program following). I would welcome and suggestions on how anybody...
5
2848
by: =?Utf-8?B?cmFuZHkxMjAw?= | last post by:
I'm working in Visual Studio 2005 Team Edition for Software Developers I've used the wizard under the Test menu to create a bunch of unit tests. When I click "Test -Start Selected Test Project with Debugger" the tests run. I'd really like to create a WinForm User Interface to run the Unit Tests. The idea would be to give the user a list of Unit Tests in a table, and let the user select any combination of tests they like. The user then...
2
2609
by: =?Utf-8?B?c2lwcHl1Y29ubg==?= | last post by:
I was wonder if there is any protocol or suggestions on how to setup unit testing projects in large solution??? If you have a large solution of say 50 projects and add a project for every unit test it could get overwhelming - is there some standards on how to set this up??? Has anyone integrated this into Continuous Integration ???
0
9993
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9839
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
11256
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10857
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
1
8034
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
7187
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5877
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
6076
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4705
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.