[dojo-contributors] unit test improvements

Carla Mott Carla.Mott at Sun.COM
Wed Dec 6 22:54:20 EST 2006


Thanks for the summary Andrew.

Carla

Andrew Wilson wrote:
> Carla:
>
> I never got an email answer to this question. I did, however, get the 
> glimmerings of an answer in last week's contributors meeting.
>
> It would seem Dojo's unit tests are driven entirely by the Java/Ant 
> build process. They are, if I understand correctly, actually unit 
> tests of the code, and do not actually require a browser. They can 
> run, for example, in Rhino...which is exactly how they are run at 
> present.
>
> Selenium was briefly discussed; there was much support for the idea, 
> but at least one person made the point that he wanted to see the 
> current tests run on a regular basis in actual browsers before adding 
> any more tests for higher-level constructs.
>
> Short answer: no, Selenium is not currently used, nor is there any 
> equivalent high-level test suite for the browser widgets. There is a 
> general desire to do it, but without any specific plans for it. There 
> is also a desire to create a test-process that runs the current 
> low-level tests in browser's JS engines.
>
> -- Andrew
>
> On 12/6/06, *Carla Mott* <Carla.Mott at sun.com 
> <mailto:Carla.Mott at sun.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Andrew,
>
>     I think I missed the answer to this question. Can you forward as I'm
>     interested figuring this out too.  I see that there is a framework
>     and a page which has some info about it but nothing about automated
>     tests in browsers.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Carla
>
>     Andrew Wilson wrote:
>
>     > Does Dojo use Selenium for any of its tests?
>     >
>     > I know I could (eventually) figure out the answer to this by
>     examining
>     > the source tree, but I'm a little scared by the source tree
>     right now.
>     > (I'm new to both Ant and Java.)
>     >
>     > -- Andrew
>     >
>     > On 11/20/06, *Brian Douglas Skinner* < skinner at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:skinner at dojotoolkit.org>
>     > <mailto:skinner at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:skinner at dojotoolkit.org>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Just wanted to chime in with a +1 for both of Bill's unit
>     testing
>     >     requests...
>     >
>     >     in-browser tests:
>     >        It'd be great to be able to automatically run the unit tests
>     >     in-browser.  For example, some of the dojo.lang code executes
>     >     differently in Rhino vs. IE vs. Firefox, so it'd be good to
>     be able to
>     >     easily test in a variety of environments.  Likewise, the new
>     >     dojo.data.OpmlStore is running nicely in Firefox but not yet
>     >     working in
>     >     IE.  Once we get that code working in IE, it would be good to
>     >     regularly
>     >     test it there, rather than just testing in Rhino.
>     >
>     >     spurious error messages:
>     >        Bill suggested output like in eclipse (or other junit UIs).
>     >     Something like that would be great.  For OpenRecord we've
>     been using
>     >     Hieatt's JsUnit, which has a nice clear red-bar/green-bar UI:
>     >        http://www.jsunit.net/documentation/runnerExample.html
>     >     < http://www.jsunit.net/documentation/runnerExample.html>
>     >     The red/green UI nicely emphasizes the 1-bit piece of info
>     that I
>     >     really
>     >     care about.  In contrast, the 'ant test' unit tests
>     currently generate
>     >     over 200 lines of output.  Would it be better if by default 'ant
>     >     test'
>     >     would only generate 1 or two lines of output?  Something like:
>     >        test: PASSED
>     >     or
>     >        test: FAILED
>     >        test: failed in
>     test_ComboBox.js#test_combobox_dataprovider : 83
>     >
>     >     ~ skinner
>     >
>     >
>     >     Bill Keese wrote:
>     >     > Hi Jesse,
>     >     >
>     >     > I'd like to talk about how we can make the unit tests
>     >     better.  There are
>     >     > two issues for me right now, (1) spurious error messages
>     and (2)
>     >     > in-browser unit tests.
>     >     >
>     >     > 1. spurious error messages
>     >     >
>     >     > Running "ant test" from buildscripts directory produces a
>     bunch of
>     >     > messages that look like errors, but really aren't.  For
>     example:
>     >     >
>     >     > [dojo-test] WARNING: 7:56:57 AM JST: dojo.log.warn() working
>     >     correctly
>     >     > [dojo-test] ERROR: 7:56:57 AM JST: dojo.log.exception()
>     working
>     >     > [dojo-test] CRITICAL: 7:56:57 AM JST: dojo.log.crit() working
>     >     correctly
>     >     >
>     >     > Can we suppress those somehow?  It's hard to tell where
>     the real
>     >     errors
>     >     >  happened.  I guess I'd like the output to be like in eclipse
>     >     (or other
>     >     > junit UIs), like
>     >     > http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2004/02/04/juie.html?page=2
>     >     <
>     http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2004/02/04/juie.html?page=2>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > 2. in-browser tests
>     >     >
>     >     > There are lots of test that need to be run from the
>     browser, *but*
>     >     > are/can-be automatic (ie, unit tests), such as:
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/test_bootstrap.html
>     >     >
>     >    
>     http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/style/test_style_setBox.html
>     <http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/style/test_style_setBox.html>
>     >    
>     <http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/style/test_style_setBox.html>
>     >     >
>     http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/tests/style/test_sizing.html
>     >     >
>     >     > Maybe we can find a way to standardize those tests.  In
>     >     particular, note
>     >     > the third link above... you can't tell if it worked or not
>     without
>     >     > studying the output; but it could just print a
>     "success/failure"
>     >     error
>     >     > message.
>     >     >
>     >     > Actually, it's probably better if all the unit tests could be
>     >     run from
>     >     > the browser; just because something works in rhino doesn't
>     mean
>     >     it will
>     >     > work in IE.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Bill
>     >     >
>     >     > Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
>     >     >> Please try to run the unit tests when you can. I know
>     everyone is
>     >     >> working hard, but I'd like to keep whatever automated
>     versions of
>     >     >> these things we have running for as long as possible. (The
>     >     change made
>     >     >> was previously caught by the same exact unit test btw, I
>     >     updated and
>     >     >> fixed it last time but thought I should say something now...)
>     >     >>
>     >     >> --
>     >     >> Jesse Kuhnert
>     >     >> Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer
>     >     >>
>     >     >> Open source based consulting work centered around
>     >     >> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >    
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     >
>     >     >>
>     >     >> _______________________________________________
>     >     >> dojo-contributors mailing list
>     >     >> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>
>     >     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>>
>     >     >> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > dojo-contributors mailing list
>     >     > dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>
>     >     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>>
>     >     > http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>     >     <http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors>
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     dojo-contributors mailing list
>     >     dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>
>     >     <mailto: dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>>
>     >     http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>     <http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors>
>     >
>     >
>     >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >dojo-contributors mailing list
>     > dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>
>     >http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>     >
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dojo-contributors mailing list
>     dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org>
>     http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>     <http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>   




More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list