Hi Sam! Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
Please read my answers inline... On May 8, 2013, at 3:11 PM, sam foster <[email protected]> wrote: > I want to add my +1 to the goal of unifying and streamlining the setting up > of test flows and a common assertion syntax. > Yay! > I know some of the issues you raise with Promises (like getting a useful > stack on exceptions) are being discussed and addressed already. I dont have > all the context, but ISTM the task/promise boat has already sailed, so step 1 > in the unification effort is ferretting out and fixing issues created or > not-solved by this approach before adoption is truly widespread. > I hope my explanation and comments in my replies to Mark and Joshua clarified my position regarding this topic! > In the past I've seen real benefit from having some kind of Test or Fixture > class/prototype, as well as for a group or suite of tests. It lets you easily > share boilerplate for similar tests and gives you a place to hang state and > other products of the steps in a test, where they can be tracked and cleaned > up during teardown. > > In the (mochi)tests we'e been writing in browser/metro, we've found need for > a few things to facilitate test writing and useful running and reporting > behavior, including: > > * async setUp, i.e. setUp is itself a Task > * various helpers for events, observers and other asynchrony tests need to > navigate > * method spies/stubs > * try/catch hackery to allow a suite to complete and report all errors, > rather than falling at the first hurdle > > The guts of the test runner-runner are here: > https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/metro/base/tests/mochitest/head.js#668 > .. I'm sure each module and project has some unique requirements but a lot > of this stuff feels strongly like it should already exist. Count me in on any > efforts to fill this gap. > Yeah, this is what I'm trying to propose… and not only for Mochi-tests, but for any JS unit test now and in the future. In that sense I'm also not trying to 'push' AsyncTest.jsm, it's merely something I wrote & documented for general use that might fit the bill. > /Sam > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:49:49 PM UTC+1, Mike de Boer wrote: >> TLDR; in bug 867742 I requested to adopt two JS modules, Async.jsm and >> AsyncTest.jsm, in mozilla-central/toolkit/modules. The whole story can be >> read below as well as at https://gist.github.com/mikedeboer/5495405. I >> posted about this subject before on firefox-dev: >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/firefox-dev/2013-April/thread.html#268 > > <snip> > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform Thanks again! Mike.
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
