visual basic barcode program Note in .NET

Creation QR Code JIS X 0510 in .NET Note

Sample of Visual Basic Code <System.Web.Script.Services.ScriptService()> _ Public Class EmployeeServiceVb Inherits System.Web.Services.WebService <WebMethod()> _ Public Function GetEmployee(ByVal employeeId As String) As String 'simulate employee name lookup Return "Jane Developer" End Function End Class Sample of C# Code [System.Web.Script.Services.ScriptService] public class EmployeeService : System.Web.Services.WebService { [WebMethod] public string GetEmployee(string employeeId) { //simulate employee name lookup return "Jane Developer"; } }

page_17

academic perspective but is not especially practical for testing commercial software when more efficient and effective tools are readily available. Each choice (EC) is simply testing each variable at least once. EC provides the minimum amount of tests as compared to virtually any other combinatorial analysis approach; however, it is generally ineffective in any complex system. Base choice (BC) identifies a combination of variables as the base test. This is usually the happy path or the most commonly used combinations of variable states. Additional tests change the variable state for one parameter at a time while keeping the other parameter variable states constant with the base test state. BC testing satisfies t = 1 or 1-wise coverage and is effective in detecting single combination errors. But some studies suggest that BC testing is useful when coupled with n-wise combinatorial testing. Orthogonal arrays (OA) involve processes adopted from industrial manufacturing. The use of orthogonal arrays in software testing is a nontrivial process. A simple OA approach expects an equal number of variable states for each interdependent parameter, and those states are mapped into an array. In more complex features where the number of variable states is different between the interdependent parameters, the selection of orthogonal arrays becomes quite complex. The output of an OA is comparable only to pair-wise test coverage. Also, the OA output is less than optimal because it includes each tuple the same number of times, leading to redundant pair-wise test combinations. Orthogonal arrays are beneficial in experimentation and performance analysis and optimization. However, OAs are a difficult solution to a difficult problem and they are not practical in functional testing of interdependent parameters given the availability of more efficient alternative solutions for combinatorial testing. One of the most efficient and effective solutions for testing variable combinations of interdependent parameters is combinatorial analysis or n-wise testing using coverage arrays. Several combinatorial analysis tools are available, and multiple algorithms are used to produce a combinatorial test matrix. For a basic understanding of a common coverage array algorithm for pair-wise analysis, consider a simple font style feature for a single font whose style can be set to any combination of bold, italic, strikethrough, or underline. In this example, there are four parameters (bold, italic, strikethrough, and underline), and each parameter has two variable states (checked and unchecked). For a simple pair-wise or 2-wise analysis, first identify the unique variable state combinations for the bold and italic parameter pair from all possible combinations. In the following g raphics, c stands for checked and u stands for unchecked. Open table as spreadsheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Bold Italic Underline c c c c u u u c u u u c c c c c c c u u u u c c u c c u c c c u c u c u c c u u u c c u u c u c u c u u u u

Some counters report instantaneous values. Others report the average of the current value and the value at the previous sampling interval. Still others report the difference between the current value and the previous value. If you re uncertain about what a particular counter represents, select the Show Description check box in the Add Counters dialog box, as explained in Adding Counters, on the next page.

Again, I used an index hint here just because the T1 table is so tiny and SQL Server might decide not to use the index in such a case . This code also invokes an endless loop, where in each iteration, it issues a SELECT statement against T1 that returns the value of col2 where col1 = 102 . After a few seconds, a deadlock should occur, and the transaction in connection 2 will be terminated . And this is to show that a deadlock can in fact take place even though the processes involved interact with a single table . See if you can figure out the cause of the deadlock . The chain of events that lead to the deadlock is illustrated in Figure 5-2 .

Figure 8-1 : A list box populated with the MyEnumerator class as its data source This is a trivial use of the power of the IEnumerator and IEnumerable interfaces. In the real world, such a simple requirement could be easily met using a loop to add items to the list box. You could also populate an array and bind to that within the Page_Load method like this: private void Page_Load(object sender, System.EventArgs e) { System.Collections.ArrayList al; al=new System.Collections.ArrayList(); al.Add("One"); al.Add("Two");

Take a Practice Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

Extract a routine Remove inline code from one routine and turn it into its own routine. Move a routine s code inline Take code from a routine whose body is simple and self-explanatory and move that routine s code inline where it is used. Convert a long routine to a class If a routine is too long, sometimes turning it into a class and then further factoring the former routine into multiple routines will improve readability. Substitute a simple algorithm for a complex algorithm Replace a complicated algorithm with a simpler algorithm.

synonyms, and there is no logical difference between them.) An IN predicate is translated to a series of equality predicates separated by OR operatorsfor example, v IN(x, y, z) is translated to v = x OR v = y OR v = z . ANY (or SOME) allows you to specify the comparison you want in each predicate, not limiting you to the equality operator. For example, v <> ANY(x, y, z) is translated to v <> x OR v <> y OR v <> z . ALL is similar, but it's translated to a series of logical expressions separated by AND operators. For example, v <> ALL(x, y, z) is translated to v <> x AND v <> y AND v <> z .