I second what JChris said. I wouldn't have been nervous about making my first patch — even though involve some Erlang code — if there wasn't that easy-to-grasp JavaScript test harness.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Paul Davis > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 2. I'd still argue that we shouldn't be using a browser as our native >> test runner. We'd have to give up the little green check marks that >> make us all feel warm and fuzzy when tests pass, but the browser is a >> huge ass confounding variable. > > I know for sure that in-browser tests are a big part of what brought > me to CouchDB. They tell the story of a web-native database in a way > that nothing else can really touch. They also make it *incredibly > easy* for newcomers to contribute. > >>To me, a proper test suite would be run >> from directly from the command line. We have the hacked together test >> runner, but not many people seem to use it regularly because we have >> the fancy green check marks. >> > > I think we're starting to feel the lack of Erlang unit tests. They > sure would have helped me in my last few patches, and they'd make a > decent beginning for documenting our native Erlang API. > > I think once we get the few Erlang tests that are already written, > integrated into the build, and make it easy to add new ones, they will > become the primary command-line test suite. > > Chris > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchris.mfdz.com >
