thanks for the post. i love the idea of having tests in the same module using the same setup and teardown, great idea.
Noticed a glitch though. You'll need to call jqUnit.module(this.moduleName) just before jqUnit.test(). Otherwise, you end up with whatever module name was last called, and not the associated module name (e.g. if you create module1 and module2 first, then tests afterwards, all tests will say module2) Colin Clark-2 wrote: > > ... I've attached a patch to testrunner.js, which moves all > its functions into a closure for privacy and exposes the public test > API within a namespace called "jqUnit." This will help avoid conflicts > in the global namespace... > This is an interesting one. Since QUnit's original intent was to test the core of jQuery, testrunner.js can only use vanilla javascript. I think its a great idea though, and it would be an easy thing for the jquery team to build another version as a plugin, and would be another thing to spread the adoption of QUnit. to the jquery team: QUnit is great in that can be easily incorporated into the enterprise build process, and one of the few JS unit testing frameworks with active development these days. but if you really want QUnit to have a greater adoption, it should really be released as an offical plugin, and include xunit assertions and namespacing. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-test-suite-and-jsUnit-compatibility-tp15882865s27240p18045595.html Sent from the jQuery General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
