On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:18:32 Gary Poster wrote: > 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.
I have to agree with Gary here. While I'm +1 on breaking out the windmill and pagetests to acceptance tests that block rollout but not landing, I can't agree that we should just turn them off completely. We, in the code team, have been doing more unit style tests for our browser code, but we in no way have enough test coverage that way for me to be entirely comfortable. The page tests often test workflows, which are getting more out of date with the addition of more ajax stuff, but I think it still has some, but limited, use. Tim _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
