On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  I think we should also provides the French translation by default
>  since lots of us are French and can translate it easily...

True; done.

>  Also it might be good to follow the naming conventions started by
>  Sergiu.
>

I thought copy/rights/actions were generic enough to be included like this.

>  > +    public void setUp() throws Exception
>  > +    {
>  > +        super.setUp();
>  > +        loginAsAdmin();
>  > +        open(getUrl("Main", "AllDocs"));
>  > +    }
>  > +
>  > +    /**
>  > +     * Validate presence of "Actions" column in table view for
>  > administrator. Validate absence of
>  > +     * "Actions" column for users without administration rights.
>  > +     */
>  > +    public void testTableViewActionsPresence()
>  > +    {
>  > +        assertElementPresent("//td[text()='Actions']");
>  > +
>  > +        // Verify that the user is logged in and log out
>  > +        if (isAuthenticated()) {
>  > +            logout();
>
>  Why is that needed since the setup always does a loginAsAdmin? I think
>  this can be changed to: logout();

Indeed; done.

>  > +    /**
>  > +     * Validate input suggest for Page field.
>  > +     */
>  > +    public void testTableViewSuggestForPage()
>  > +    {
>  > +        getSelenium().typeKeys("page", "Treeview");
>  > +        // The table is updated via Ajax, we give it the time to
>  > make this call
>  > +        getSelenium().setSpeed("1000");
>  > +        assertElementPresent("//[EMAIL PROTECTED]'pagename']/
>  > a[text()='Treeview']");
>  > +        getSelenium().setSpeed("0");
>
>  Is the setSpeed() required? We don't do any action after it's set so
>  is it used for anything? Shouldn't it be before the typeKeys?

The setSpeed() affects the assert that follows (without this setSpeed
the test fails).

>  There are way too many test methods. These are NOT unit tests and thus
>  1) are costly and 2) are not supposed to be independent of each other.
>
>  Thus most of them should be grouped in the same test method IMO, with
>  nice comments separating them. Maybe we don't need to have a single
>  test method but they should be grouped according to what they are doing.

My bad, all the tests were grouped in Evelina's version, I've re-grouped them.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean-Vincent Drean
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Reply via email to