Hello devs, A (very) quick email to let you know I have submitted patches on bug 13691 - Add some selenium scripts and bug 13849 - Introduce acceptance tests with cucumber I would like to start a discussion on these subjects: selenium, cubumber, browser-based tests, acceptance tests, etc. What are you opinions? Should we stuck to Test::WWW::Mechanize or it's worth to have a look somewhere else? Useless ? Worth a try ? Very useful ? Cheers, Jonathan
Greetings,
Should we stuck to Test::WWW::Mechanize
http://search.cpan.org/~ether/WWW-Mechanize-1.74/lib/WWW/Mechanize/FAQ.pod#J... -- yes, I know it is WWW::Mechanize, but the Test uses this. I think with our tendency to be ajaxy - javascriptish, we should consider other alternatives. Though, I wouldn't abandon it outright. GPML, Mark Tompsett
On 17 March 2015 at 11:06, Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@biblibre.com> wrote:
Hello devs,
A (very) quick email to let you know I have submitted patches on bug 13691 - Add some selenium scripts and bug 13849 - Introduce acceptance tests with cucumber
I would like to start a discussion on these subjects: selenium, cubumber, browser-based tests, acceptance tests, etc. What are you opinions? Should we stuck to Test::WWW::Mechanize or it's worth to have a look somewhere else?
Useless ? Worth a try ? Very useful ?
I think integration/acceptance tests would be very, very useful. Unit tests at the level of individual subroutines are awesome, of course, but some automated way of telling if things are working on a higher level would definitely be a good thing. I have been a fan of Test::WWW::Mechanize, but with our increasing reliance on JS and AJAX, I think something that can work with those things too are a necessity. I don't have strong opinions on what tools we should use, though. Best regards, Magnus libriotech.no
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Druart -
Magnus Enger -
Mark Tompsett