On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Aryeh Gregor <a...@aryeh.name> wrote: > That said, of course, Mozilla hackers *are* familiar with Mochitest > but not testharness.js, and adopting testharness.js in parallel with > Mochitest would require people to be familiar with both. That is > certainly a minus.
I was told at TPAC that testharness.js has gotten/is getting a mode where you get to make the entire file "one test" from the point of view of testharness.js. In that case, the user experience of testharness.js is (I'm told) isomorphic to using mochitest with explicit finish. This change removes my objection to using testharness.js. I'm quite okay with a non-mochitest harness that merely requires me to spell "SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish", "SimpleTest.finish", "is" and "ok" in a different way. (Although I still think "is" and "ok" are superior spellings.) As for the concern related to tests that need to manage server-side behavior, I think supporting our foo^headers^ files would go a long way even if the .sjs/.php case remained unsolved. (For arbitrary server-side programming, I am guessing that it would be easier to make all parties accept a Python-based solution than to get everyone to accept either .sjs or .php.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
