On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Deryck Hodge wrote: > FWIW, while the pain of Windmill has been acute lately, I don't recall > a month without some form of Windmill pain since I've been working on > Launchpad.
Point taken. I'm still not convinced myself, and would much prefer the integration-tests-for-deployment story, but I'm just a vote. > I feel the same about page tests. Something I should have said in my first reply is that discarding the Windmill tests worries me; discarding the page tests frightens me, unless the unit test coverage is much, much higher than I believe it to be. I think these two parts of your proposal should be separate. Perhaps a reasonable next step for the page test part of your proposal would be to run the tests, collecting line-coverage statistics with and without the pagetests? There may be other options to collect this, but the --coverage option described in the bin/test --help output would be one approach. If the unit tests alone have similar coverage to the unit tests plus pagetests, that would be at least a data point to console me. Gary _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
