http://unhandled-exceptions.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/21/an-exception-of-type-runninglikecrap-has-occurred/ Miscellaneous musings on life, .NET development, and related things that don't really matter Thu, 17 May 2012 21:39:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://unhandled-exceptions.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/21/an-exception-of-type-runninglikecrap-has-occurred/comment-page-1/#comment-11228 Hrish Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:52:58 +0000 http://unhandled-exceptions.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/21/an-exception-of-type-runninglikecrap-has-occurred/#comment-11228 Good post. Btw, should not BDUF != NDUF be actually !BDUF != NDUF ? Good post.
Btw, should not BDUF != NDUF be actually !BDUF != NDUF ?

]]> http://unhandled-exceptions.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/21/an-exception-of-type-runninglikecrap-has-occurred/comment-page-1/#comment-11128 Howard Pinsley Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:23:08 +0000 http://unhandled-exceptions.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/21/an-exception-of-type-runninglikecrap-has-occurred/#comment-11128 Interesting read Steve. The way you've limited the context in which these tests run, it would seem that you've addressed the anticipated concerns. And I agree. A test whose failure accurately predicts a production failure that would otherwise go unnoticed until much later is worth the effort. I wonder what other "non-functional" contexts should be tested in addition to data access performance. Interesting read Steve. The way you’ve limited the context in which these tests run, it would seem that you’ve addressed the anticipated concerns. And I agree. A test whose failure accurately predicts a production failure that would otherwise go unnoticed until much later is worth the effort. I wonder what other “non-functional” contexts should be tested in addition to data access performance.

]]>