Datastructure for a factory pattern in practice
I’m implementing what’s basically an event log system for a larger system. I used Single-table inheritance to build out the table.
Datastructure for a factory pattern in practice
I’m implementing what’s basically an event log system for a larger system. I used Single-table inheritance to build out the table.
Unit-testing databases: test all possible permutations of read and write to table?
I am testing a resource management class that is interacting with a database or a file system, or a combination of both. I was wandering if it is the norm to test all possible permutations of read and write for all columns of a data-set when a database is involved. What I mean is:
Unit-testing databases: test all possible permutations of read and write to table?
I am testing a resource management class that is interacting with a database or a file system, or a combination of both. I was wandering if it is the norm to test all possible permutations of read and write for all columns of a data-set when a database is involved. What I mean is:
Unit-testing databases: test all possible permutations of read and write to table?
I am testing a resource management class that is interacting with a database or a file system, or a combination of both. I was wandering if it is the norm to test all possible permutations of read and write for all columns of a data-set when a database is involved. What I mean is:
Why is quantity in software still written as “1 result(s)”?
Lately, I’ve been noticing that a lot of software, be it a website, a client application, or a video game, often write a representation of quantity as follows: “1 result(s)”. Now, I can understand why they would do that 20 years ago. But these days, shouldn’t we have enough processing power and memory to be able to say “1 result” and “2 results”?
Why is quantity in software still written as “1 result(s)”?
Lately, I’ve been noticing that a lot of software, be it a website, a client application, or a video game, often write a representation of quantity as follows: “1 result(s)”. Now, I can understand why they would do that 20 years ago. But these days, shouldn’t we have enough processing power and memory to be able to say “1 result” and “2 results”?
Why is quantity in software still written as “1 result(s)”?
Lately, I’ve been noticing that a lot of software, be it a website, a client application, or a video game, often write a representation of quantity as follows: “1 result(s)”. Now, I can understand why they would do that 20 years ago. But these days, shouldn’t we have enough processing power and memory to be able to say “1 result” and “2 results”?
Is implementing an interface defined in a subpackage an anti-pattern?
Let’s say I have the following:
Is implementing an interface defined in a subpackage an anti-pattern?
Let’s say I have the following: