Hey Justin,
A bit of quick background information:
QUnit is the jQuery unit testing framework, and it has recently been
improved. We've been running off a custom fork of it which we dubbed
jqUnit. Justin is migrating us back to the standard version.
We also have some asserts that provide compatibility with the xUnit-
style asserts. We like them, so the question is what to call them.
On 2-Feb-09, at 3:06 PM, Justin wrote:
I'm nearing the completion of switching from jqUnit to qUnit.
Since I need the name change in order to complete the conversion,
please post your suggestions by the end of the day.
A bunch of us talked this over on the IRC channel. Here's a summary of
the conversation:
colinclark:I think everyone here tends to prefer the xUnit-style
asserts.
colinclark:Rather than ok() and the like.
Bosmon:Yes, they are unfortunate
Bosmon:Well, my suggestion is that we just continue to call it jqUnit
anastasiac:hm... it's a jUnit - qUnit adapter, right?
anastasiac:so "jqUnit" seems at least mildly fitting
michelled:I suppose xqUnit is slightly better but I don't think it's
enough better to change
michelled:I'm happy with jqUnit
Justin_o:Bosmon, colinclark, michelled, anastasiac: sounds like we are
going to keep jqUnit
So, we'll stick with "jqUnit." Justin, thanks for fixing this issue,
it's nice to get rid of our little fork.
Colin
---
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
http://fluidproject.org
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
