Ok great - "in the ballpark" helper ids are better than nothing, definitely
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote: > Presumably these would just be helper ids so we can easily jump to a > particular test, or verify if the same test is failing on multiple devices. > As tests get added, modified, there is a possibility that a particular test > changes context/meaning, which I don't think is a big deal. > > Trying not to over-architect it, and just have a quick + easy way to make > sure we're talking about the same thing. > Namespacing would help, but it's still not a guarantee, and eventually it > turns into a guid, and we lose our ability to refer to it in conversation. > > > @purplecabbage > risingj.com > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think its a good idea. The ids would have to be long-lived for JIRA > > issues though - not sure if the script can really guarantee that > especially > > if one adds more tests in the middle of a test suite. The only way I > could > > see this working if we manually add ids (with namespacing it won't be too > > much of a problem). > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Lorin Beer <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > on our morning scrum call, Jesse made the excellent suggestion of > unique > > > test id's for each unit test in Mobile Spec. This would allow us to > > > reference specific test cases when filing issues, and track these tests > > > between issues. > > > > > > Would be implemented as a script which would insert unique identifier > > into > > > the Jasmine Tests, allowing failing tests to be tracked in jira issues, > > and > > > in between jira issues. > > > > > > thoughts/comments? > > > > > > - Lorin > > > > > >
