On Oct 10, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > jvdrean (SVN) wrote: >> Author: jvdrean >> Date: 2008-10-10 11:53:57 +0200 (Fri, 10 Oct 2008) >> New Revision: 13481 > >> Log: >> XE-319 : Write an integration tests framework for the new wysiwyg >> editor >> >> Initial version, the XHTML assertions must be reviewed since some >> behaviors looks weird. > > Should we test the internal HTML? Or the generated wiki syntax? > Marius, > do all the browsers have the same markup? AFAIK, no, so this is a > point > against testing HTML. Testing the wiki syntax implies testing not just > the editor, but also the html parser.
We need to have a test that would work the same with, say, our current TinyMCE editor so my initial idea was to test the generated XHTML (i.e. just before the XHTML parser). However you're right that maybe the XHTML would be different (although we should control what we generate). So I agree that testing the generated wiki syntax is probably the best since this is what we want to assert anyway in the end. +1 for testing the wiki syntax. Note: It doesn't matter at all that we retest what the rendering is testing because 1) the goal of these tests are to be functional (aka end to end tests) and 2) we won't test the same things. The unit tests are comprehensive whereas here we only want to test editor behaviors. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
