On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2010, at 12:50, Noah Slater wrote: > >> >> On 19 Mar 2010, at 17:11, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >> >>> We want to test the CouchDB code, not the browser's HTTP handling. >> >> Sure, but as one of CouchDB's primary interfaces is the browser, it seems to >> makes sense that we would want to test how this works. Testing from the >> browser allows us to test for and catch problems introduced by caching, etc >> - which is what our real world users would be running into. >> >> Unless I'm missing something? > > I fully agree, but we should have a separate browser interaction > suite for that. The test suite is a very untypical browser client and > doesn't really test real-world browser use-cases. > > Cheers > Jan > --
+a bajillion. I think its important to maintain *some* tests in the browser to test its ability to use CouchDB as a client, but we should put more work into separating API tests and core tests. Also, Zed Shaw has a very informative (and colorful) description of confounding factors [1]. Its about two thirds of the way down under a heading of "Confounding, Confounding, Confounding." http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/programmer_stats.html
