![]() ![]() It is compatible with Windows PowerShell 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Pester runs on Windows, Linux, MacOS and anywhere else thanks to PowerShell. Once it's installed, you can start authoring your tests. To install Pester, you run the below command. When you want your tests to focus on the behavior on the tests, mocking is a good idea. In you tests you might have calls to commands that carry out side-effects, like accessing a data store or creating a file for example. When you start having quite a few tests, you want a way to group those tests into larger logical groups, that's what test suites are. You can run tests with Pester, both a single test with a single piece of input as well as testing many different inputs at once. Pester comes with diverse ways of asserting conditions that will determine if your tests should fail or not. Pester is a test framework meant for PowerShell and is a module you can install. There are many other reasons for wanting to have tests but the three above are quite compelling. If you create tests around what you do, you ensure you build your code in a way that makes it testable. Another reason for having tests is that it drives architecture. With this confidence you start daring to change this, if you for example would need to refactor code and ensure it still works after those changes. When you have a lot of tests covering your code it creates a level of confidence. Ensure your code works as as intended for certain scenarios. The reason you want to have tests are many: So, it isn’t Rupert Murdoch you should worry about, it’s the sticky-fingered child standing on the sofa next to you.TLDR this article covers the testing framework Pester that you use to test your PowerShell scripts. It is our kids who enjoy the role of gate-keeper as they have control over the little black box. With the timeless appeal of the animation classics which poured out from Hanna-Barbera, Warner Bros and MGM it is no wonder that in satellite/cable homes nearly half of all young children’s viewing is of satellite channels, and 15 per cent is to the Cartoon Network alone. Who in their right mind would come in from work to find their kids watching Tom and Jerry in the lounge and demand to see Newsroom South-East rather than squeeze up to watch Tom suffering another fairly major dental trauma? It’s not the kids we’re indulging – it’s us. With all the extra programming hours to fill that cable and satellite allow, broadcasters are transmitting everything that was dear to our hearts when we were kids (test transmissions aside) such as Tom and Jerry, Banana Splits, Scooby Doo, Top Cat and the Flintstones. Secondly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to object to watching what the kids are watching anyway. However, viewing evidence would suggest the contrary.įirst of all, to combat a popular myth, young children watch far less TV on average than adults – approximately 17 hours a week, compared with 25 hours. After all, once they’re in the driving seat, so to speak, only a veritable churl of a parent would banish them to the portable in the bedroom.Īdults without kids may well be critical, and claim that parents these days are too indulgent towards their TV-viewing offspring. Their willingness to watch television at times of maximum parental apathy, such as very early in the mornings or after school, is the viewing equivalent of Germans putting towels on sunloungers. The ace card up kids’ sleeves is availability to view. Not that this seems to happen very often. Husbands can slump in front of the screen to enjoy a constant visual diet of football on Sky, while wives can savour their favourite soaps in another room.Ī majority of children now have TV sets in their bedrooms, to which they can retire if their viewing choices are overruled. Individuals can migrate to their own space to view their personal selection of programmes. Thirty-eight per cent of all UK homes have two sets, and 19 per cent own three or more. ![]() The set is no longer limited in number or location. Today, in my household, the TV is no less important, but each family member has different expectations of it and is more empowered to reject something in favour of an alternative. I sat through endless soaps, plays, news or family variety spectaculars because it was preferable to reading a book. ![]() I can even vividly recall the various random trade test transmissions on the the experimental BBC2 – the Monte Carlo rally and the Zambesi dam are etched in my mind, albeit in grainy black and white.Īt home, my influence over the buttons on my parents’ teak box was limited to Top of the Pops, the Avengers or Thunderbirds. As a child I remember it as a precious daily treat. The television has always been important to me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |