- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:30:35 +0200
- To: "public-test-infra@w3.org" <public-test-infra@w3.org>, "James Graham" <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:07:49 +0200, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > So one request I've had from people at Mozilla used to writing > Mochitests is an easier way to write testharness.js tests, particularly > for the special case where there is exactly one test per file. This is a > interesting case because the file itself provides the isolation that we > usually try to obtain by wrapping each test step in a function() {}, so > it is possible to cut out some of the verbosity. An example of the kind > of result we might get is > > <doctype html> > <title>Example test</title> > <script src=/resources/testharness.js></script> > <script src=/resources/testharnessreport.js></script> > <script> > setup({file_is_test:true}) > > onload = function() {assert_true(true); done()} > > I think there are some possible disadvantages to this; in particular it > might encourage people to put a whole load of things that should be > separate tests as multiple asserts in one file in a way that will break > if one assert doesn't work in a particular browser. However it does seem > like if used wisely it could be a win, and might help sell the idea of > writing testharness.js tests going forward at Mozilla. What do people > think? I think it's a good idea. But it would be nice to minimize the boilerplate. The snippet above omits <div id="log"></div> which is currently required, but the script could create it if it's missing. It would be nice to avoid the setup({file_is_test:true}). Maybe the script can figure it out based on what's called first: test/async_test or assert_foo/done ? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 08:30:06 UTC