On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Perrin Harkins wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 10:27 -0400, Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote: >> This is much better than the solutions I had encountered before, which >> were things like using WWW::Mech on a development server or maybe on a >> temporary testing webserver instance (HTTP::Server::Simple). > > Hmm. Better? It's a less useful test, since it runs in a fake > environment and skips a lot of code. It's not worthless, but it's no > replacement for running tests against a real server. If you have things > like mod_rewrite rules, or want to test that your apache config is > right, or make sure your proxy is doing uploads and handling cookies > correctly, you really need a live server. > > An alternative is usually a good thing though. I expect you would use > an approach similar to how people use Mason from a command-line script, > and wire it in to a mech wrapper the same as the Catalyst::Test script > does.
If your goal is to unit test individual components I think it's definitely better. If your goal is to do functional tests of the app as a whole it clearly won't do that. It has the advantage of running faster, which can make a big difference in # of smoke testing runs you can do per day. -dave /*=================================================== VegGuide.Org www.BookIRead.com Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog ===================================================*/ Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Mason-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
