Harbs, I don't know if it still works since changes to Royale, but I had something rudimentary for cross-target unit testing quite shortly after working on the reflection support last year, in fact that was my primary reason for choosing to focus on reflection at the time.
It was visual output only (i.e. just to look at the test results output in the browser) and the goal was to get some compatibility with flexunit (so that the same swf-based flexunit tests that were running in the build -e..g BinaryData tests- could be run visually side by side between swf and js). I also added a new TestVariance metadata to account for known (expected?) variation between swf and js. This was needed to cover (for example) things like testing Reflection classes themselves, where the results can be different between the targets based on the 'native' base classes (e..g EventDispatcher inheritance chain). Some of that code might also be useful to harvest for what you are doing, I'm not sure... It's here: https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/develop/manualtests/UnitTests On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Awesome! > > I assume that this means I can code the code to the Royale repo under > Apache 2. Right? > > Harbs > > > On Nov 3, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Please feel free to use my test runner. I'm happy to commit it somewhere > to make it official Apache code, if necessary. > > > > - Josh > > > > On 2017-11-03 04:19, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One topic which keeps coming up is better test coverage for Royale. > >> > >> I think this is becoming a critical issue for a few reasons: > >> 1. As we get close to version 1.0 it’s necessary to have good test > coverage for confidence of quality and confidence that we don’t introduce > recessive bugs. > >> 2. It’s really hard to accept Github pull requests without examining > the code VERY well that it does not introduce recessive bugs. CI which runs > automated tests could give a preliminary test on pull requests to ensure > that they don’t break anything. If the pull requests do break something, > it allows the requester to fix the problem with confidence without taking > others’ time. > >> > >> I think we need to break up testing into pieces and figure out a > strategy to implement automated tests in a way that they are maintainable. > >> > >> Some points: > >> 1. I think integration into something like Travis would be very helpful. > >> 2. I think there’s a Jenkins plugin for building pull requests. Not > sure how useful it is.[1] > >> 3. Josh has created a Node.js-compatible test-runner architecture which > could be useful for unit tests on parts of the framework which don’t rely > on browser features. (i.e. models and the like) He mentioned the > possibility of donating it, and I think that would be a very useful feature. > >> 4. For UI and integration tests, there seem to be some pretty cool > integrations using Selenium.[2][3] > >> 5. I think the main testing effort needs to be using JS and something > like Josh’s testing framework for non-UI pieces and some easy-to-use > Selenium integration for visual pieces and integration tests. > >> 6. We probably also want some API endpoints we can test off of for > integration testing. > >> > >> I’m willing to invest time into this. > >> > >> It’s going to be a lot of work building out the tests and I think we > need a plan for that. My thoughts: > >> > >> 1. Step one is to make it easy to write meaningful automated tests and > establish a clear pattern. > >> 2. Step two is to start writing tests starting from the > most-used/easiest to beak pieces and work out from there. > >> 3. Once the pattern is established, any new pieces MUST have testing > coverage. > >> 4. When fixing bugs, attention should be paid to adding testing for > that component. > >> 5. When a pull request comes in on a piece which does not have unit > test, a test must be written before accepting the pull request. The test > does not need to be written by the requester. Before examining the request, > the test should be written to pass for expected behavior and fail for the > bug that the pull request is attempting to fix (assuming the pull request > is to fix a bug). > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> Harbs > >> > >> P.S. I’m thinking of coming to the US in late December/early January. > I would be interested in getting together for a hacking session with folks > who are available. > >> > >> [1]https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/GitHub+pull+ > request+builder+plugin <https://wiki.jenkins.io/ > display/JENKINS/GitHub+pull+request+builder+plugin> > >> [2]https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/gui-and-headless-browsers/ < > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/gui-and-headless-browsers/> > >> [3]https://saucelabs.com/products/integrations <https://saucelabs.com/ > products/integrations> > >
