[Cosmo-dev] Requirements for Windmill tests running on tinderbox

[Mikeal Rogers]

> I am assuming that the 30-50% of the existing tests are targeting  
> the detail view, which ought to be the majority of the changes to  
> the Calendar UI.   Are their other impacts which I am not  
> accounting for?   Since we don't have any dashboard tests, those  
> tests shouldn't need to be rewritten ;-).   Since we are talking  
> about 1 day to fix all of those tests, I am more concerned about   
> the time it will take to write new tests to cover the new  
> functionality.

A bunch of the drag and drop tests are failing now as well, this is  
probably due to a change in the calculation of the offsets because of  
the new detail view.

It's 1 day for adam to fix them, if it was me or someone else trying  
to fix them I would imagine it would take much much longer.

> For areas where functionality didn't change, I think developers  
> ought to be on the hook, because in those areas, the test ought to  
> be correct already.

For the most part, yes. But there are a few cases where we don't have  
the "scaffolding" in place for consistent references to dynamic div  
ids. In these cases we have some fairly brittle xpath  queries that  
get us the id's. In this case it's a deficiency of the tests and of  
the fact we generate random id's with no scaffolding in the actual UI  
so who is on the hook for fixing them is a little unclear -- I  
honestly don't have an opinion either way.

> I'd just replace mde, travis, and bobby with "anyone changing the  
> UI in a substantial way"

Yeah, my bad.

> I've no problem with getting windmill into tinderbox.  The sooner  
> the better, actually.   At the end, I want us to be in a world  
> where tinderbox can give us trustable information about checkins  
> that break the UI (as well as performance regresssions).   If we  
> need some intermediate steps along the way (like what you propose  
> above) I am fine with that.

Sounds great.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/cosmo-dev/attachments/20070604/a3599d80/PGP.pgp