Sounds good to me, thanks. You're right, it's not like wasting time since we have no additionnal work to adapt the test suite for it to run in browser.
When I do testing in backend language, the most annoying thing is when I get false negatives ( tests that fail whereas it works well outside the test environment ). Can you confirm using node.js + jsdom is reliable enough so I can consider all false negatives are only my fault? On 21:47 Thu 28 Oct , Fábio M. Costa wrote: > And yes, you won't make sure that your code works on ie, neither on firefox > or safari, but you have an easy way to integrate your code with a CI and a > very good tool to do TDD, as it's very quick to run the tests. In the end, > if IE matters for you, you'll have to check if everything is ok there, but > just in the end. I believe/wish you'll waste less time creating your code. > > -- > Fábio Miranda Costa > front...@portalpadroes > Globo.com > *github:* fabiomcosta > *twitter:* @fabiomiranda > *ramal:* 6410 > > > > 2010/10/28 Fábio M. Costa <[email protected]> > > > @Olivier > > > > All my tests are runing on both enviroments (browser and nodejs), and they > > include tests with dom elements. > > To use dom elements on nodejs take a look at jsdom. > > > > http://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom/ > > > > I've just added one file that just makes a "window" object from jsdom and > > merges its attributes with the "global" object (which is the "window" of > > nodejs). By doing this i have a "fake" browser enviroment, that works pretty > > well. > > > > > > > > -- > > Fábio Miranda Costa > > front...@portalpadroes > > Globo.com > > *github:* fabiomcosta > > *twitter:* @fabiomiranda > > *ramal:* 6410 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Olivier El Mekki <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Thanks to both, > >> > >> The project won't start before 2~4 weeks but I'm gonna play a bit with > >> that before. > >> > >> I saw that there's a DOM/BOM implementation for commonJS that could lead > >> to get some fixtures for the dom related code : > >> http://github.com/tmpvar/jsdom > >> > >> It was reported to work well with node.js : > >> > >> http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/04/09/node-js-yui-3-dom-manipulation-oh-my/ > >> > >> The question is : does it worth it? I'm not sure testing the client-side > >> javascript code is that relevant outside of the browser, since what > >> works in node.js can actually be broken in (guess who?) ie. > >> > >> @Fabio: What part of your code are you testing on your ci app, and do > >> you need to run classical in-browser test suite? > >> > >> > >> On 11:43 Thu 28 Oct , Aaron Newton wrote: > >> > It's on my todo list to do this for mootools itself. I'd be interested > >> in > >> > collaborating a bit. I've been contributing to windmill a bit with plans > >> on > >> > hudston + windmill + our various test environments (there are a few). > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Olivier El Mekki <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > I was asked to write some mootools code for a project built in a > >> > > continuous integration process. > >> > > > >> > > Does anyone know if the new mootools' spec engine, mootools runner, > >> > > plays well with hudson? > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Olivier El Mekki. > >> > > > >> > >> -- > >> Olivier El Mekki. > >> > > > > -- Olivier El Mekki.
