On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:32, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ----- "Denis Gervalle" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 19:23, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 20, 2010, at 7:15 PM, dgervalle (SVN) wrote: > > > > > > > Author: dgervalle > > > > Date: 2010-05-20 19:15:53 +0200 (Thu, 20 May 2010) > > > > New Revision: 28950 > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > > > > > > platform/web/branches/xwiki-web-2.3/standard/src/main/webapp/resources/js/xwiki/table/livetable.js > > > > Log: > > > > XWIKI-5212 - Livetable filter serialization does not properly > > support > > > multi-valued form elements > > > > Merge from trunk r28947 > > > > > > Do we have a test for this? How do we unit-test UI components? > > > > > > > This would be nice to have. Building proper tests is not so easy, this > > could > > be very long to setup, since you need to test in several browsers and > > you > > need full AJAX interaction. > > That's basically what we do with Selenium, except that we test the > integration of the features in the wiki, not the atomic behaviors of the > components. > Yes, and there is a selenium test regarding AllDocs that obviously depends on the livetable. There isn't really an alternative to launching a browser for testing our JS > components, since most if not all of them heavily rely on a DOM, so just a > JS runtime will not be enough. > Absolutely true, but you need to lauch more than a browser for proper test, you had to test all of them. If I take the livetable, there is not much JS and the chance to break it by mistake is not so important, but on the other side, the risk to break it in one browser and not in another, is really bigger. > We could envisage a JS unit-testing system like this : > > - Write tests in .js files, using JSUnit or any other unit testing JS > framework (http://ejohn.org/blog/which-unit-testing-framework/) > - Slurp the tests in a XAR using a maven plugin > - Execute the tests inside XE, using Selenium Unit testing would be nice, but functional test IMO will provide more. For functional test, you need to have more complete samples than just AllDocs. These samples could be nice demo of the capacities of XWiki, so it could be worth to write them. Also, extending current selenium test to other pages that use the livetable could be a simple way to start. Once again, I am sorry but I could not do that right now, but I would help as much as I can if you decide to go ahead. Denis > wdyt ? > > Jerome. > > > I am not used to such automated testing, > > but I > > am not sure the investment is worse the improvement we could get from > > them. > > > > On the other side, I use livetables JS heavily, so you could be > > assured that > > my fixes/improvements are either well tested or will be fixed ASAP > > since all > > changes I introduce is already in production. We also usually test > > them on > > all supported browsers, and at least on IE6/7/8, FF3 (Win/Mac), > > Safari4 > > (Mac) and Chrome (Mac) > > FYI, I found this one when we have introduced the usage of hashes to > > provide > > "Back to the list" links. I will soon commit an improvement supporting > > the > > page size in hash as well, so you can really get very precise "back to > > the > > list" return links. > > > > Denis > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > -- > > Denis Gervalle > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > eGuilde sarl - CTO > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
