On 14/02/2009, at 5:00 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
1. NO LONG ASS TEST NAMES.
-1
OTOH, I'd like namespaced tests, so each node isn't a paragraph, but
the fully qualified form is cf. ruby's rspec et al.
2. I'd still argue that we shouldn't be using a browser as our native
test runner.
+1
The canonical runner should be a command-line tool so it can be
integrated into non-gui builds.
If people want to have a set of tests for a browser as in "Your
browser must support this set of operations to be used with CouchDB"
I'm all for it, but other wise its just adding headaches.
-1
Our requirements are a working HTTP client implementation, and a
browser's conformance to that isn't about it's Couch support. I think
this should be a separate project.
Making test cases smaller and more focused is a good thing.
+1
There should be only one issue actually under test, but some test
require considerable context.
And I'd argue for one file per test.
-1
4. Crazy idea on tagging. This is a bit off the deep end, but it'd be
kinda neat to have tagging support for tests. then if you have 5
seemingly random tests fail you'd realize that they all touch the
_uuid's endpoint or something. Just a random thought.
-1
I think this is over-engineering, and unlikely to be maintained
correctly.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Every task involves constraint,
Solve the thing without complaint;
There are magic links and chains
Forged to loose our rigid brains.
Structures, structures, though they bind,
Strangely liberate the mind.
-- James Fallen
