David, Is there any reason why we can't get the Selenium test runner mounted and committed into /webtools?
I'm a bit unclear about what everyone is hoping for from the integration. Are we looking to introduce a (OfBiz specific) technology agnostic layer for the definition of test actions? Or do we want to make a binding decision on the set of tools to use? - Andrew On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:25 +0000, Andrew Sykes wrote: > David, > > I've added a patch to Jira for this... > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-677 > > - Andrew > > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 13:31 -0700, David E. Jones wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > Okay, I see where you're going with that. It sounds like a great idea > > and very do-able, and useful for many things other than just testing. > > > > BTW, In general I do really like this approach of writing unit tests > > as services so we can take advantage of all of the flexibility and > > efficiency that we get for the main application code. > > > > If you (or anybody!) wants to work on this, please do! I'll try to > > bring it up during the dev conference too as we're working on testing > > infrastructure if it hasn't been implemented by then. > > > > -David > > > > > > On Jan 30, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I think we're talking about different things here, perhaps I should > > > detail the suggestion a bit more clearly... > > > > > > The idea was to have a page that allowed you to run a service > > > synchronously much like the "schedule service", however, it would then > > > display the results tabularly in the browser. For each value pair > > > displayed, there would be a checkbox to allow you to save the value in > > > the session, then when you returned to run another service if the > > > one of > > > the input params matched one of the previous saved values, it would > > > automatically populate the input box. > > > > > > This would allow people relying predominantly on a browser based test > > > tool to run pretty fancy multi-service sequences. > > > > > > I admit, it does sound a bit hacky, but I have a rough draft which I'm > > > using for some testing and it does make certain things a lot easier. > > > > > > Can you give me your thoughts please? > > > > > > - Andrew > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 20:35 -0700, David E. Jones wrote: > > >> I'd really prefer to do what has been proposed as a best practice and > > >> write tests using the same OFBiz framework tools that we use to write > > >> applications, like simple-methods, services, etc... > > >> > > >> But yes, it is possible to call a service through a web request and > > >> there is one in the webtools wecapp that has been there for years. > > >> The trick is you have to set export="true" for all services called > > >> this way, which is another reason to do logic-level test (including > > >> service calls) in a more black-box way, especially if they are not > > >> for testing things that are intended to be available externally. > > >> > > >> -David > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Andrew Sykes wrote: > > >> > > >>> Assuming an automated web browser type technology is the way to > > >>> go for > > >>> testing... > > >>> > > >>> What does everyone think of having an option to run a service > > >>> synchronously from webtools? > > >>> > > >>> This would allow a lot of clever asserts from the test tool? > > >>> Without the > > >>> need to make the tool dispatcher aware? Would this be an adequate > > >>> approach? > > >>> -- > > >>> Kind Regards > > >>> Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> Sykes Development Ltd > > >>> http://www.sykesdevelopment.com > > >>> > > >> > > > -- > > > Kind Regards > > > Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sykes Development Ltd > > > http://www.sykesdevelopment.com > > > > > -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
