I know John Resig produced some interesting work, WRT unit testing browser-based JavaScript:
http://ejohn.org/projects/bringing-the-browser-to-the-server/ Something like this might suffice for those who would like to run CouchDB's JavaScript test suite outside of the browser...? On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Zachary Zolton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
