[Windmill-dev] Windmill 0.4 Roundup

[Adam Christian]

I should have my computer situation figured out this weekend then I  
will get to give you a real response.

However I agree with all of your idears.

Adam

On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Matthew Eernisse <mde at osafoundation.org>  
wrote:

> How are you gentlemen,
>
> Just a quick heads-up. I've updated the docs on the JS tests to  
> reflect current reality, and there are some basic tests in SVN that  
> can be used to try out the new features.
>
> Adam, let me know what I can do to move the reporting stuff forward.
>
> I also want to ask about the doco for the JS tests -- there's so  
> much shared context between the way you organize, write, and run  
> tests, it's kind of hard to paint a coherent picture when "writing"  
> and "running" are supposed to be on two different pages.
>
> Seems like including the content for running JS tests in with  
> running all the other kinds of tests might not be the best way to  
> organize things. I actually considered reorg'ing the wiki pages, but  
> then I noticed all the pages URLs are numbered, and I'd be moving  
> stuff in a way that would break numerical order.
>
> I'd also like to add an "advanced usage" section for the JS tests.
>
> What would be a good way to improve this situation?
>
>
> Matthew
>
> Adam Christian wrote:
>> That's a good question, this may take some tinkering to come up  
>> with a thorough way to test that functionality.. as soon as I have  
>> a minute I will sit down and see if I can come up with something.
>> Do you guys have a set of JS Framework features you would like to  
>> start with?
>> Adam
>> On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
>>>> Not sure how you'd write unit tests for filter/phase limiting, as  
>>>> they're attributes of the *test run*, not anything in the tests  
>>>> themselves. Their value is during dev and debugging, not during  
>>>> actual testing. Anybody have any ideas how we could do tests for  
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> We do need to work out the semantic for you informing the backend  
>>> of your whole test run status at the end of the test run.
>>>
>>> The results object you give to the backend will have the list of  
>>> tests run.
>>>
>>> I'll be creating an XMLRPC method for executing the js framework.  
>>> We can call that with various filter/phase limiting and check the  
>>> test run result objects in pure Python.
>>>
>>> For now tho, we need unittests for all the jsTest methods, just  
>>> like we have the vanilla windmill API. For now we can just focus  
>>> on tests that return true, we can work out a way to test failures  
>>> and waits later using something along the lines of what i outlined  
>>> for the filter/phase limiting.
>>>
>>> We don't need 100% of the features covering in unittests before we  
>>> release, i just want the first run of them in and we can improve/ 
>>> expand them later. As it stands we have zero, we definitely need  
>>> more than zero before we release.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think Adam would be the one to ask about calling new methods on  
>>>> test-run completion. Adam, any clue about that?
>>>
>>> Whoever wrote the code that calls report_without_resolve() would  
>>> be the most likely person to do this work as well, whoever that is.
>>>
>>> -Mikeal
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Windmill-dev mailing list
>>> Windmill-dev at osafoundation.org
>>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/windmill-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Windmill-dev mailing list
>> Windmill-dev at osafoundation.org
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/windmill-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Windmill-dev mailing list
> Windmill-dev at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/windmill-dev