I am not sure what is the right forum to publish this in (here or in the C++ forum)
But I coudln't find any information about it too, which is odd.
Anyway, Unit testing in C++:
Since it is not as popular as unit testing in other high level languages, I need your recommendations and insights.
I have a lot of legacy code- I was just given a project to which I have to have covered by at least 70% unit tests.
I need to do a lot of refactoring. Different tools (mocking tools) offer different things and has different limitations. So it might be smarter to ask the people who have already done this and know better than I do - what do you use?
Is there a mocking tool (along with a supported testing framework) that can mock concrete classes, virtual, static and non static method, private methods, etc?
I recall being in the same situation 2 years ago.I had a lot of legacy code in my project and I had write unit tests for it.
I have spent hours on researching and trying different tools for the task I was given, and it was not easy to find mocking tools
that could satisfy my needs when it comes to different limitations I had which are similar to the ones you mentioned.
I have tried different ones but then found GMock and later on FakeIT, both did quite a good job but couldn't help me with
concret&static classes, private/static/virtual methods and I had to do a lot of refactoring in my code.
Researching a little more and I found Isolator ++ (which is actually free now, I had to pay back then), which amazingly took care of such cases
and saved me a lot of time...so you know where my recommendation goes to :slightly_smiling_face:
It is a very blurred line between an expiry date that ask you to "overhaul" the software and a nag screen that demands that you update the system. Both may allow you to continue to work but achieve the same thing and are bloody annoying.
I suspect the OP has run across an early version of an updater attempt.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
If your are writing it as a Software as a Service type application then yes. Its no difference than say Office 360 which is a subscription every year you have to pay for it again. If however you are just writing a widget app it either needs to be a you pay for it its yours. Now its fair to link that install to a machine where that license can ONLY run on one machine (or one at a time)
We allow installing major versions of our application in parallel (for example, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0)
For minor versions releases, we patch the current version (for example 1.1, 2.4, 3.2 ... ) and we rename the shortcuts (start menu and desktop) to reflect the minor version (for example, app 1.1, app 2.4 )
Is there a Microsoft UX guideline saying what behavior Windows application should do in that case ?
For example, the Visual Studio shortcut will only display the major version , but not the update number , for example "Visual Studio 2015" and not "Visual Studio 2015 Update 3"
I've never come across a standard convention for this (and I've been around the block a few times ). Couldn't find one either.
I have seen the convention you have noted "Visual Studio 2015" etc from other major suppliers. By the same token NUnit includes the minor e.g. 2.6.3 as does Windows Phone SDK e.g. 8.1
I'm personally not a fan of changing the shortcut just because there has been an update but I guess you have no choice if you are allowing parallel installs. However that leads me to yet another style (I won't call it a convention any more) that is common and that is to have the Start Menu folder name static with the (major) versions listed below.
Probably not a lot of help, but no-one else responded