21 May
2010
21 May
'10
1:29 p.m.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:05, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On May 21, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Fine, so I let you write all the tests for the initial and basic live table
functionalities, and once these are available, I will complete them to test
the new features I have recently added ;)
So, just to be serious, I completely agree with you regarding the advantage
of automated tests. But my current feeling about XWiki and its current UI is
that we are not moving fast enough compare to the competition. As well as
there is great components (ie new rendering), there are on the other side a
really bad/complex/tricky/not working UIs compare to similar products. If I
want to be able to continue my contribution on the project (and I d'like
to), I have to concentrate on improving the end user experience first, and
gets new clients paying for my work.
So I am sorry if I cannot currently meet your quality expectations, I just
hope that my intensive usage and testing already helps improving the product
quality, since this is the best I can do right now.
Denis
Hi Denis,
On May 21, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 19:23, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 20, 2010, at 7:15 PM, dgervalle (SVN) wrote:
>>
>>> Author: dgervalle
>>> Date: 2010-05-20 19:15:53 +0200 (Thu, 20 May 2010)
>>> New Revision: 28950
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>
>>
platform/web/branches/xwiki-web-2.3/standard/src/main/webapp/resources/js/xwiki/table/livetable.js
>>> Log:
>>> XWIKI-5212 - Livetable filter serialization does not properly support
>> multi-valued form elements
>>> Merge from trunk r28947
>>
>> Do we have a test for this? How do we unit-test UI components?
>>
>
> This would be nice to have. Building proper tests is not so easy, this
could
> be very long to setup, since you need to test
in several browsers and
you
> need full AJAX interaction. I am not used to
such automated testing, but
I
> am not sure the investment is worse the
improvement we could get from
them.
It's always worth it.
Note that the hard part is getting started with it. Once you have your
first test, it's usually very easy to add a second test afterwards and it
doesn't take long.
Thanks
-Vincent
at the
project level. We do need absolutely automated tests written for
everything that gets committed to ensure the quality of XWiki releases.
new
strategy for testing "XWiki UI Components".
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
> On the other side, I use livetables JS heavily, so you could be assured
that
> my fixes/improvements are either well tested
or will be fixed ASAP since
all
changes I
introduce is already in production.
While this is good enough for you as an individual we cannot rely on this
> We also usually test them on
> all supported browsers, and at least on IE6/7/8, FF3 (Win/Mac), Safari4
> (Mac) and Chrome (Mac)
> FYI, I found this one when we have introduced the usage of hashes to
provide
> "Back to the list" links. I will
soon commit an improvement supporting
the
> page size in hash as well, so you can really
get very precise "back to
the
list" return links.
Denis
So you could either write a functional tests using ui-tests or define a
IMO you should start with livetable tests in ui-tests.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs