On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On 19 Mar 2010, at 12:50, Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> >>> On 19 Mar 2010, at 17:11, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>> >>>> We want to test the CouchDB code, not the browser's HTTP handling. >>> >>> Sure, but as one of CouchDB's primary interfaces is the browser, it seems >>> to makes sense that we would want to test how this works. Testing from the >>> browser allows us to test for and catch problems introduced by caching, etc >>> - which is what our real world users would be running into. >>> >>> Unless I'm missing something? >> >> I fully agree, but we should have a separate browser interaction >> suite for that. The test suite is a very untypical browser client and >> doesn't really test real-world browser use-cases. >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- > > +a bajillion. >
I prefer the browser tests because I'm much happier with JavaScript. But maybe I'm crazy > I think its important to maintain *some* tests in the browser to test > its ability to use CouchDB as a client, but we should put more work > into separating API tests and core tests. > > Also, Zed Shaw has a very informative (and colorful) description of > confounding factors [1]. Its about two thirds of the way down under a > heading of "Confounding, Confounding, Confounding." > > http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/programmer_stats.html
