On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Dorneles Treméa <dorne...@tremea.com> wrote: > from his recent work on Canonical, I'm sure Sidnei has some great > insights to share here, don't you Sidnei? :-)
We've been using YUI, so Y.Test as the test framework. We run tests manually in the browser when debugging, but for automated unit tests we use JsTestDriver from Google to drive the tests, save output to XML then report failure/success back to Python's unittest by parsing the XML. There's a little bridging needed to get the tests registered with JsTestDriver, but not terrible. JsTestDriver ships with a version of jQuery, but might not be the same you guys are using. There's another test runner coming up, YETI, but it might be YUI-specific. For functional tests, we're using Selenium2, which is alpha-something IIRC. It's *way* better than Selenium1. We're using the webdriver API (remote webdriver and Firefox, on local machine), and it's Good Enough, just forget about recording tests in the browser and saving them - at least for now. One way or another, writing tests manually isn't that hard once you get the idea, and produces better, more concise tests, specially if you have to match elements with CSS classes or XPath. The Launchpad team is using Windmill. From the amount of groaning I hear over there, I would avoid it at all costs. It is possible to run headless tests with both Selenium2 and Windmill, under xvfb-run. Pretty trivial actually. Forget about writing a ton of tiny tests though. I would say functional Selenium tests should be end-to-end, massive use case tests. Because they take a long time to run. If you think Plone tests take a long time, think again. ;) -- Sidnei _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
