On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:52:50 PM UTC+2, Abraham Lin wrote: > > On Friday, October 5, 2012 1:46:54 PM UTC-4, Thomas Broyer wrote: > >> It's not only about client vs. server, it also affects non-GWTTestCase >> unit tests of your client code. >> > > This doesn't seem right. Given that your client classes will be relying on > the super-sourced logic at runtime, why shouldn't the tests utilize the > same logic as well? There are almost certainly going to be slight > differences between the original non-translatable classes and the > super-sourced equivalents, so I'm not seeing why the tests would be > structured to make use of the former when the fully-compiled code makes use > of the latter. In the best case, the two have the exact same semantics. and > it doesn't matter which one you use. But in the general case, the two are > not quite the same, so it would seem to make more sense to depend on the > version that will actually be in use at runtime. >
You can have the same test run in both modes: JRE which is very fast, and GWT which is painfully slow. com.google.gwt.regexp, com.google.gwt.typedarrays, com.google.gwt.safehtml are things you can use in both modes; that way you can test your business logic with a fast JRE test, and once in a while (e.g. on the CI server) confirm that it'll run in the browser with a slow GWT test. The same goes for your own emulated things: unit-test them (in both modes), then use them (and unit-test that code in JRE mode only, or in both mode; but developers don't have to pay the slow GWTTestCase tax and can still run tests on their own machines, fast) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/GbzUim6XVHgJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
