On Friday, 2 September 2011 at 9:23 AM, Trek Glowacki wrote: > I think the appropriate question to ask is "of Rails developers unit testing > their javascript, who is *not* using Jasmine" > > I definitely get the impression that > * most people are not unit testing their javascript application code, instead > relying on integration tests to catch errors > * among those who do, jasmine is the most frequently used. > > I happen to use Jasmine, but I'm not particuarly wild about it. I'd be > interested in what over people use, but I suspect Jasmine is it. > > Although there are a *lot* of javascript testing libraries, there isn't much > consensus among javascripters which one(s) to use. As a result, they all > suffer from the lack of support and tooling. Each library seems to be missing > key features. Major framework support of one of them (Jasmine or not) would > hopefully catapult one to the forefront. > > +1 for any damn thing. >
Until there's a clear winner I don't think there's much point us 'picking a winner'. As you say, being included in rails will likely provide a lot of momentum to whatever was picked and I'd prefer that that momentum was added to something which had already proven it was head and shoulders above the rest. There are sufficient hooks for gems to implement the generators and rake tasks as required, so i think we don't need to hastily include the flavor of the month when it's still changing so regularly. Remember, it took us till 3.1 to switch to jQuery by default. Some caution in a project of our size is warranted. Once everyone in the JS testing camp is pushing the same tech, we can see what, if anything, we need to bake into rails itself. -- Cheers, Koz > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
