On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Tim Landscheidt<t...@tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:
> Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> What we need is something similar to parser tests, where it's
>> absurdly easy to pop new tests in with little to no coding
>> required at all. [...]
>
> Is it really so much more difficult to write
>
> | TestAddArticle ("Main Page", "blah blah");
>
> than
>
> | !! article
> | Main Page
> | !! text
> | blah blah
> | !! endarticle
>
> or
>
> | TestParser ("External links: trail", "Linktrails should not work for
> external links: [http://example.com link]s", "<p>Linktrails should not work
> for external links: <a href=\"http://example.com\"; class=\"external text\"
> rel=\"nofollow\">link</a>s\n</p>");
>
> than
>
> | !! test
> | External links: trail
> | !! input
> | Linktrails should not work for external links: [http://example.com link]s
> | !! result
> | <p>Linktrails should not work for external links: <a
> href="http://example.com"; class="external text" rel="nofollow">link</a>s
> | </p>
> | !! end
>
> I think the motivation for using standard techniques is to
> lower the bar for newcomers to the code and not have them
> to master another ("fairly self-explanatory") syntax.
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
I don't disagree here. I don't really care what the particular format
is. My main point (on which I think we agree) was that it needs to
be standardized, easy to learn and use, and very flexible to a variety
of tests we could potentially want.
-Chad
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
