On 7/12/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Anoop Nayak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Joe, Brane, >> >> >> I just made a draft of the proposal as per the format suggested by >> Luciano in the following links: >> >> <link removed> >> >> I have a child page listed in the second link. And I have uploaded the >> contents of the draft of the proposal contents onto a temporary server >> which i just registered now. >> >> <link removed> >> >> Please do have a look and advice. >> >> And the last 2 mails were rejected. I clearly don't know the reason. >> Please do help me find that too. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> -- >> Anoop >> > > > One thing comes to mind, though I can't say whether it needs to be covered > in the scope of your proposal. The Trac wiki syntax has been extended over > the past several releases and will continue to be extended (for example > [1]). In order to keep your library maintainable, it will be important to > have good test coverage of your JavaScript code. Neither Trac nor > Bloodhound currently have any test coverage of JavaScript code.
Bloodhound (and afaik Trac) do not have tests for JS code at all , just functional tests based on twill > It would be > desirable to have unit and functional test coverage for your project. Nice to have but IMHO the cost of this kind of testing is high . > I don't have any experience with unit or functional testing in > JavaScript, but I expect that other Bloodhound devs will have some good > suggestions. I do use some and, based on my experience, this may complex and time-consuming . [...] -- Regards, Olemis. Apache™ Bloodhound contributor http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
