That would probably make the most sense at the moment. Thanks again for
your help in all this.
Cheers,
Gary
On 13/12/13 08:33, Antony Semonella wrote:
Thanks, all, for the advice. I plan to look at #727 to re-implement
the QCT field preservation using a POST as suggested.
I think it'd be useful to write a "QCT field preservation" unit test
for ProductTicketModule.process_request . I'm I right in thinking that
the most appropriate location for this would be:
bloodhound_multiproduct/tests/web_ui.py
Cheers,
Antony
On 12 December 2013 19:44, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Antony Semonella <[email protected]>wrote:
Thanks all,
I'll have a look at updating this to use a POST request and writing a
test around this.
Cheers,
Antony
To explain Olemis' comment, the issue with writing a test is that the
current functional test suite uses Twill, which doesn't have support for
testing JavaScript. Eventually we might be able to migrate to a new testing
framework, but that seems like a fairly good-sized project to tackle. I
don't say that to discourage you from pursuing or discussing here further
though. It is just most likely the case that there a few steps needed to
introduce the ability to test JavaScript, such as selecting a testing
framework.
