Yes, right!
I adapted the wiki page and added this as the second idea.
Regards,
Jakob
2010/6/8 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
> The same pattern used in the example test() method can be used in the
> WebappTestCase superclass. Thus you can provide preconfigured
> superclasses without requiring superclasses.
>
> public class WebappTestCase {
>
> public void setUpWebapp() {
> webAppTester = new WebappTestCaseHelper();
> webAppTester.setUpWebapp();
> }
>
> public void tearDownWebapp() {
> webAppTester.tearDownWebapp();
> webAppTester = null;
> }
>
> public void input(String value) {
> return webAppTester.input(value);
> }
>
> [...]
> }
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for looking at this!
> >
> > The input().into() will most likely just delegate to HtmlUnit to set the
> > values on the current page. Thus inputting into a non-rendered field will
> > not be possible.
> >
> > Yes, actually Gerhard and I are currently talking about this. On the one
> > hand we want to have the chance to provide preconfigured super-classes
> > (mostly for extension testing - see ExtensionTestCase on the wiki page)
> and
> > on the other hand we don't want to use super-classes at all. That's why
> > Gerhard suggested something like
> > @Configuration(SomeConfigurationClass.class) instead of inheritance. In
> this
> > way we would also be able to provide preconfigured configurations.
> > Furthermore the input() and assert() methods would have to be moved to
> some
> > helper class, right.
> >
> > I will update the wiki page with this information.
> >
> > Do you have some other ideas about it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jakob
> >
> >
> > 2010/6/8 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Looks very interesting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you add an example test showing what it would look like to test if
> >> a component was rendered? Design note: attempting to input().into()
> >> a non-rendered component (or otherwise manipulate a non-rendered
> >> component from the tests) should raise an assertion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is it possible to design the WebappTestCase class to delegate calls to
> >> another class so that tests do not have to extend WebappTestCase, or
> >> will this cause problems with the annotation configuration? There
> >> are other testing frameworks out there that already require a specific
> >> TestCase superclass, so this should be avoided if possible.
> >>
> >> Ideally, you would have a WebappTestCaseHelper class with the
> >> functionality of the current WebappTestCase, then have a new
> >> WebappTestCase delegate to WebappTestCaseHelper.
> >>
> >> Then if you need to extend a different testcase base, you could work
> >> with WebappTestCaseHelper directly instead.
> >>
> >> For example, if WebappTestCaseHelper were static,
> >>
> >> import static WebappTestCaseHelper.input;
> >>
> >> public void setup() {
> >> WebappTestCaseHelper.setUpWebapp();
> >> }
> >>
> >> public void tearDown() {
> >> WebappTestCaseHelper.tearDownWebapp();
> >> }
> >>
> >> public void test() {
> >> input("value").into("id");
> >> }
> >>
> >> or if WebappTestCaseHelper were an instance:
> >>
> >>
> >> public WebappTestCaseHelper webAppTester;
> >>
> >> public void setup() {
> >> webAppTester = new WebappTestCaseHelper();
> >> webAppTester.setUpWebapp();
> >> }
> >>
> >> public void tearDown() {
> >> webAppTester.tearDownWebapp();
> >> webAppTester = null;
> >> }
> >>
> >> public void test() {
> >> webAppTester.input("value").into("id");
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi guys,
> >> >
> >> > Cosmin, Gerhard and I have been working on an initial API proposal for
> >> > the
> >> > GSoC project "Automated webapptests for MyFacescore + extensions". You
> >> > can
> >> > find the proposal in the MyFaces wiki at
> >> > http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/AutomatedWebappTestsAPI
> >> >
> >> > With the help of this API it will be possible to run automated tests
> >> > against
> >> > the real JSF implementation running in a container (e.g. Jetty).
> >> >
> >> > It would be very great if you could take a look at the proposal and
> tell
> >> > us
> >> > what you think about it or how you would change it.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance!
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Jakob
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jakob Korherr
> >> >
> >> > blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> >> > twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> >> > work: http://www.irian.at
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jakob Korherr
> >
> > blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> > work: http://www.irian.at
> >
>
--
Jakob Korherr
blog: http://www.jakobk.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
work: http://www.irian.at
