On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 08:46:20PM +1030, David Kettler wrote: > >Before adding a chrome domain for conkeror-test, I'd like to take a step > >back and just ask, does this really represent a qualitative improvement to > >our unit testing capabilities? What kinds of things does it let us test, > >beyond this particular case? > > I don't have a strong justification for it, I just thought it was neat. > > It gives us a way to refer to local test data. The only other > (pretty weak) instances I can think of are: > > * Test html files for automated testing of basic browser navigation.
We have almost zero test coverage for UI stuff right now. If walnut could be enhanced to be able to test some of these things, that would be a very positive improvement. > > * A test html file for a page mode. Such a test case is probably > not very useful though, as page modes depend entirely on the > vagaries of changes to web sites out of our control. > No feeling on this... would rather wait until page-modes have been split up as we talked about in another thread, before worrying about testing them. > * Invoking test cases from anywhere with > conkeror -q -batch -l chrome://conkeror-test/content/simple/keymap.js > (This will need changes to load_rc().) > That would be nice. We should only allow loading js from trusted url schemes though... file: and chrome:. -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
