Bahaw Anyone wrote: > has anyone used canoo webtest to test a rails application? > appreciate the info.
Firstly, one ANT configuration file can be longer than an entire Ruby module. If you go that route, you will soon encounter this phenomenon: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConfigurationHell Next, canoo hits a web server to test. This is bizarrely inefficient if most GUI testing should happen directly to the XHTML that a server would have served. Rails "functional" tests call actions in controllers, and returns their contents as strings for parse-testing. This provides 95% of the coverage needed. The remaining coverage happens in live JavaScript. That is where we need in-browser testing, such as Watir, Selenium, or Firewatir. Tests that run a webserver, but then don't run a web browser, are the admission of defeat before you start. They neglect simply generating a page and not serving it. -- Phlip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
