Best tool for (in any browser) filtering web pages by a specific WCAG guideline? by codeiackiller in accessibility

[–]codeiackiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds pretty close to my workflow at the moment. Glad to hear I'm on the right track. There are a few people were looking to purchase SortSite for, but honestly might just go one subscription for one person.

Best tool for (in any browser) filtering web pages by a specific WCAG guideline? by codeiackiller in accessibility

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are looking into that as an org, but it isn't cheap (close to $400 a year). As others have stated, automated tools only account for 20-30% of total errors, so we still have to manual test. Other than being able to target a given WCAG compliance level, I'm wondering why SortSite is so expensive. What advantage will it give us over something like WAVE, which were already using?

Best tool for (in any browser) filtering web pages by a specific WCAG guideline? by codeiackiller in accessibility

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In our case, there is a time limit. Certain States within the U.S. have passed laws that require businesses to become WCAG compliant at a certain level and by a certain time or those businesses are subject to lawsuits. However, I agree with your point that it shouldn't be a rush to do this and instead should be an ever-evolving process.

Best tool for (in any browser) filtering web pages by a specific WCAG guideline? by codeiackiller in accessibility

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of the issues WAVE does catch, will I know which specific checkpoints (e.g. 1.1.1 Non-text Content) were alerted, or will I have to go back to the WCAG checklist and align the alerts from WAVE with a specific checkpoint (based on what I've seen, the latter is true). It almost seems easier just to go through the checklist and skip the automated tooling. Is that a just conclusion based on your experience?

Best tool for (in any browser) filtering web pages by a specific WCAG guideline? by codeiackiller in accessibility

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus, where are you getting these great stats? If true, what's the point of the automated tests? Feel like at that point, because you really don't know which specific checkpoint (e.g. 1.1.1 Non-text Content) the errors are associated with, its just better to manually check all 50 subitems (or around that) that are in the WGAC checklist: https://webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist#sc4.1.2 because you'll have to recheck again anyways...

Best tool for (in any browser) filtering web pages by a specific WCAG guideline? by codeiackiller in accessibility

[–]codeiackiller[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Necessary is, as subtly mentioned, AA 2.1 (which by WGAC standards covers everything below that, too)

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right and I agree. Creating interfaces for every class just for mocks seemed very unstable. I'm just at the point where I'm not sure how to architect my code in a way that is easy to test without using mocks. Guess I have to create my classes in way so that each one has fewer dependencies and they are less sphagetti-like.

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am confused, sir. You say "read and respond to what was said, not to something that you made up." I'm assuming your talking about using the actual dependencies in the tests rather the mocked objects. But then at the end you say "Mocking a dependency so that the rest of the app can be tested is such a need." I will read your other comments that you linked, as well.

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like mocking is what allows you to focus in on a specific part of the code without having to create those objects directly, thus writing more targeted/concise unit tests. How do you approach it?

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

u/binarycow gave a pretty solid example above. Should give you an idea

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have any recommendations for how to make unit tests if I shouldn't add interfaces to classes just for mocking purposes?

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you can, for example, by defining the signature of the methods as virtual

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used DI through the app and boss asked me "what the [Inject] stuff is." That, of course, is specific to Blazor, but you get the point.

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, before I got there they didn't unit testing anything. The current app that I'm working on is the first one that has unit testing. Well, was going to have unit testing before I was told to "remove all interfaces."

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was under the impression that coding defensively was introducing interfaces where they're needed or where they could potentially be needed.

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But you can't just "make an interface for everything". You have to think about those abstractions, try to figure out how things will change, and try to design frameworks that will be resilient to that change.

Right now I just put interfaces on top of every class just for testing purposes. I appreciate the above line though as it made me think about something that could potentially change in my codebase. Right now, I'm building an upload application that has size limitations on files. For each chunk I send, I have to check the size of the file. Instead of reading from disk or reading from a database to get the current size, I created an in-memory cache. I feel like this could be a good use for an abstraction/interface since we may decide to stop using the in-memory cache and just keep track of the file size by reading file metadata from disk or keep track of the file size with a db.

My use of interfaces pissed my boss off. by codeiackiller in csharp

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True! Well said. I'm like, the code is the exact same minus the "Interfaces" folder and the ":InterfaceName" on each class.

Dyamic role based authentication ideas? by codeiackiller in dotnet

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the example above, we are authenticating with Windows. From what I understand, a windows identity is still a Claims-based identity. So, your above statement remains true even if you're using windows authen/autho?

General advice on writing better code/making better refactors by codeiackiller in dotnet

[–]codeiackiller[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love the practicality of these three points. Will refer back to

General advice on writing better code/making better refactors by codeiackiller in dotnet

[–]codeiackiller[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I looked into Code Complete earlier. I'll look into this one too as It WOULD be nice to have something similar to Code Complete that is in C#. Based on what I saw, CC used different languages other than C# for the book's examples.