W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > April 2002

Re: jsUnit 1.3.0 alpha

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:49:18 +0200
Cc: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org, Edward Hieatt <edward@jsunit.net>
To: bclary@netscape.com (Robert Clary)
Message-Id: <052B6D8F-50C3-11D6-B068-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
One issue which will certainly be raised (has already been raised in 
part in the DOM WG) is the complexity of tests; testing module 
interdependency will be a nightmare if we can't run tests that rest on 
results of running previous tests. We could either write long massive 
test descriptions for those cases, or make the framework smart enough to 
load several tests and pass results from one test to another test, then 
run the second test (this will be asked for with level 3, take L/S for 
example).

So I guess the answer to your question is, No, we don't need to be able 
to run more than one test (currently) but we may want that in any case.

Memory requirements are a limiting factor, but I think we cant engineer 
smoothly and avoid the worst case scenario. Speed is, at least to me, as 
you mention, not a limiting factor. We have had voices arguing for the 
opposite, but my personal feeling is that if the gain from running more 
tests is larger than the loss of waiting for a few more minutes it's 
worth it. Then again, it's frustrating to do one change in your code, 
compile, test, and have that procedure take you x minutes longer.

Ideas?

/Dimitris

On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 12:33 , Robert Clary wrote:

> [bc] inline
>
> Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>> comment inlined
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 12:11 , Robert Clary wrote:
>>> Curt Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another thing that would be useful is a clean-up function that runs 
>>>> after
>>>> all the tests have been completed.  The existing jsUnit based HTML 
>>>> tests
>>>> leave a large number of windows open since they keep unmodified 
>>>> documents
>>>> around for potential later use, however there is nothing to hook to 
>>>> close
>>>> them all down when the tests are over.  My recollection is 
>>>> tearDown() fires
>>>> after each test and would not be appropriate, but I could wrong on 
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>> The caching of unmodified test documents seemed to me to introduce a 
>>> great deal of complexity without necessarily adding a corresponding 
>>> degree of benefit. However that is the subject of a different 
>>> discussion I think.
>>>
>>> It may be possible to do what you want by organizing the tests into 
>>> suite of suites and having the final suite perform the cleanup.
>>>
>>> This reminds me however that the Document Loader in jsUnit currently 
>>> is limited to a single document at a time. This may be a limitation 
>>> that needs to be addressed in the proposed jsUnit. How important is 
>>> it to load multiple test documents at the same time in general and in 
>>> the DOM TS in particular?
>>>
>> [dd] Am I off track presuming that this could be useful if we utilize 
>> the JsUnit TestSuite option?
>
> [bc] No, I don't think you are off track. The current design can 
> probably be modified to support loading documents into separate windows 
> although handling the onload notification in Mozilla may be problematic.
>
> The question I have is "do any of the tests actually require that two 
> or more documents be open at the same time?". If so, then this is a 
> must have feature for jsUnit and the DOM TS.
>
> However, if it is only a convenience originally introduced as a partial 
> work around for problems encountered earlier due to asynchronous 
> document loading, is the complexity worth it?
>
> I consider Memory performance to be an absolute requirement for 
> supporting as many testers as possible. We can not require each tester 
> to have 1G of ram to run the tests. However I do not consider speed as 
> important. If the tests take a few minutes longer without document 
> caching, no one will be excluded from running the tests.
>
> /bc
>
>
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 18:49:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:58:46 GMT