Re: RfC: WebApps Testing Process

On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow<art.barstow@nokia.com>  wrote:
>>> On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow<art.barstow@nokia.com>
>>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect the proposed
>>> Approval page. I'll notify the list after I've reworked that document to
>>> reflect the comments.
>> I think you're overlooking the comments I made in this thread.
>
> Good point. I think the info in the Harness document [Harness] is mostly
> OK. We expect follow-up discussions on testharness.js to continue on
> public-test-infra (and I need to update the Harness doc to reflect that).
>

OK, got it. You were just asking for specifically for comments on the
wiki documents. Whereas I went straight past that to the code. Usually
I look at code first and skip documentation -- just a habit.

However, seeing your objective, I don't agree with everything in the
Harness document either. Regarding the Harness wiki I see:

| Within each test one may have a number of asserts.

I don't agree.

SRP applies to functions and also unit tests. Limiting test functions
to one assertion keeps them simple and can also indicate too much
complexity in the method being tested.

Removing the word "one", that leaves:

| Each test should have at most one assertion.

Testing W3C APIs is something that I have advocated for years on these
lists.. This test harness needs an overhaul, however. It is not easy
to find an expert with deep knowledge of W3c APIs, ECMAScript,
browsers, and unit testing and who can put all of it together. This
stuff is not as simple as it might appear on the surface.
-- 
Garrett

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 18:12:01 UTC