Em sex 13 jun 2014, às 09:57:19, Mathias Hasselmann escreveu: > Am 12.06.2014 08:16, schrieb Mandeep Sandhu: > >> Whenever possible, use the mini-http server, as it is less likely to > >> cause > >> network timeouts. > > > > Ok. Although since I'm testing out a lot of redirection scenario's, it > > might be better to use a real webserver for generating different types > > of redirect responses (permanent/temporary, redirect to HTTPS, > > with/without auth etc). > > While it makes sense to have automated compatibility tests, it is not > needed to use a real web server for plain regression testing: Real > servers are complex pieces of software which add another layer of > complexity to your test, but adding complexity to automated tests is > exactly what you should avoid. Automated tests _must_ be as _trivial_ as > possible: Complexity introduces bugs and regressions, and who is going > to find them? It wouldn't make much sense write unit tests for your unit > tests, would it? So really: Keep complexity of automated tests at a > minimum. Actually, even Qt's own mini-http server might be too complex > for your testing needs. In not just in my opinion, the perfect > _regression_, not interoperability test for a network code is run > against a trivial server that just tests incoming requests against > simple regular expressions, or even against fixed text and then replies > with a fixed reponse. Similiar to what you do when using Mock objects.
I'm separating out the MiniHttpServer into a separate header. The problem is that MiniHttpServer cannot react to weird replies from the client. It needs to send exactly what it was told to send. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
