Ok well that's all well and good, but I think we should be careful about how we do this. Will there be separate pull requests to Gaia? I posit that the correct way to develop is to review and land test code alongside feature/bug code. Let's prove this to ourselves by exploring other, wrong ways in which we can do this.
Case 1: Suppose we review/land our tests before the feature/bug code. - This breaks the build. - It's possible that we learn things while writing the feature/bug code about the constraints of the problem and that the feature changes. In this case, our tests have gotten old and crufty before they ever passed! - It makes our generous reviewers take two steps out of their busy days instead of one. Case 2: Suppose we review/land our tests after the feature/bug code. - We check untested code into source control. Do we even know if it works? - If the feature/bug code gets backed out and the test stays, then we break the build. - We waste our reviewer's time again making them review two patches. Our proof is finished since the only options are to land our test code before, alongside, or after our bug code. Therefore, if we're going to have people other than feature/bug code writers developing automated test cases, then everyone who's working on the bug must work together to submit a single patch and/or pull request to Gaia. This workflow isn't what I've observed so far with the Python test code, and I hope that we keep to it for the future health of our project. Personally this seems like a lot of hassle to me (which is why I prefer to write my own tests), but I am happy for others to do this so long as they do it thoughtfully (in a way that doesn't waste reviewer time, stop good tests from being written, and break the build). On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Zac Campbell <zcampb...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Well I was trying to offer you a QA/automation team to do that for you! > > but I am interested in new test cases for new functionality coming up that > QA haven't been let in on yet or if there's coverage that your team needs > for on-device testing to use hardware that desktopb2g doesn't have access > to. We can cover some space that Travis cannot. > > Julien has requested some for Messaging app that we did and Rudy also > asked for a keyboard/TBPL test which we did last week. > > > > > > > > On 18/11/13 16:58, Gareth Aye wrote: > > I will let you, but only if you use the js tooling so that I can review > and maintain the tests :) > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On Nov 14, 2013 3:57 AM, "Zac Campbell" <zcampb...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> > >> > Are you tired? is the cat bothering you for its food? Forgotten to shave >> for the last 6 days? Don't have time to write your UI tests? >> > >> > Then let QA do it for you! >> >> Hahaha, I love it! Zac++ >> >> / Jonas >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-b2g mailing list >> dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g >> > > > > -- > Best, > Gareth > > > -- Best, Gareth _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
