21 May
2010
21 May
'10
1:15 p.m.
On 05/21/2010 12:32 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
----- "Denis Gervalle"<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
Another alternative I investigated was to use JSUnit with an injected
DOM, from a HTML file placed in src/test/resources. I had a PoC with
this at one point, and it was working fine. I'll try to find it.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 19:23, Vincent
Massol<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
That's basically what we do with Selenium, except that we test the integration of the
features in the wiki, not the atomic behaviors of the components.
There isn't really an alternative to launching a browser for testing our JS
components, since most if not all of them heavily rely on a DOM, so just a JS runtime will
not be enough.
We could envisage a JS unit-testing system like this :
- Write tests in .js files, using JSUnit or any other unit testing JS framework
(http://ejohn.org/blog/which-unit-testing-framework/)
- Slurp the tests in a XAR using a maven plugin
- Execute the tests inside XE, using Selenium
wdyt ?
On May 20, 2010, at 7:15 PM, dgervalle (SVN) wrote:
platform/web/branches/xwiki-web-2.3/standard/src/main/webapp/resources/js/xwiki/table/livetable.js
Author: dgervalle
Date: 2010-05-20 19:15:53 +0200 (Thu, 20 May 2010)
New Revision: 28950
Modified:
> Log:
> XWIKI-5212 - Livetable filter serialization does not properly
support
multi-valued form elements
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. Merge from trunk r28947
Do we have a test for this? How do we unit-test UI components?
Jerome.
> I am not used to such automated testing,
> but I
> am not sure the investment is worse the improvement we could get from
> them.
>
> 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. 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
>
> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/