Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Nick Sandford]

So, I have been working a little on a PR for this (
https://github.com/django/django/pull/3003) and having spoken to Tim
briefly about getting this supported in jenkins I just wanted to check that
the approach was OK. The tests use node, grunt, qunit, istanbul and jshint.
Is this a reasonable approach? Some of the responses here are using a
similar stack.


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Trey Hunner  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I started a rough draft of a DEP for adding unit tests for Django's
> JavaScript: https://github.com/django/deps/pull/4
>
> I am suggesting that a native JavaScript test framework be used
> *without* attempting to use an adapter to run the tests under the Django
> test framework.  I anticipate that this suggestion may require further
> explanation and debate, so I have submitted a pull request for
> discussion while I continue to extend the DEP.
>
> - --
> Trey Hunner
> http://treyhunner.com
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTZy2KAAoJEOpnfp/Nreona8oIAKBE0T05wmnCP0tq/nvmQIlC
> 0KWB0bX47FHn3TeOjEK8dHrxebP9UDL+wmdZ8F23iOQnW8OiJIO3dJjSjqLOAXxg
> dNh5imq02kY2rvjVB6ypZp0h+INkQoaQMae5xMdN4RozLnbNrgXln7vbuSrjIB/8
> z7h983vqiRp/ofa+2urTnUnC63730gg6vBbXE5EQ+5WeJxqx2yahdbeSmB3oCnhD
> 7TMRdHYY+Tx1bdsHF3KOniKoHXA0qoeV16RK+J7EWRHMo3eKlH1zOpcbNX8klwed
> qF2zZSKFqMIj0H/mBOVWy5uePXUOfIOP4iLTjEuSy+6sPDNPCiPAvCE5R9jyz/k=
> =/i9B
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/53672D8A.2050005%40treyhunner.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMwcc5WuxZ5yVQQH8wVbX51VHyaXN-ZLyrK_oJeS3e4vo5kqvA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Trey Hunner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I started a rough draft of a DEP for adding unit tests for Django's
JavaScript: https://github.com/django/deps/pull/4

I am suggesting that a native JavaScript test framework be used
*without* attempting to use an adapter to run the tests under the Django
test framework.  I anticipate that this suggestion may require further
explanation and debate, so I have submitted a pull request for
discussion while I continue to extend the DEP.

- -- 
Trey Hunner
http://treyhunner.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTZy2KAAoJEOpnfp/Nreona8oIAKBE0T05wmnCP0tq/nvmQIlC
0KWB0bX47FHn3TeOjEK8dHrxebP9UDL+wmdZ8F23iOQnW8OiJIO3dJjSjqLOAXxg
dNh5imq02kY2rvjVB6ypZp0h+INkQoaQMae5xMdN4RozLnbNrgXln7vbuSrjIB/8
z7h983vqiRp/ofa+2urTnUnC63730gg6vBbXE5EQ+5WeJxqx2yahdbeSmB3oCnhD
7TMRdHYY+Tx1bdsHF3KOniKoHXA0qoeV16RK+J7EWRHMo3eKlH1zOpcbNX8klwed
qF2zZSKFqMIj0H/mBOVWy5uePXUOfIOP4iLTjEuSy+6sPDNPCiPAvCE5R9jyz/k=
=/i9B
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/53672D8A.2050005%40treyhunner.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Trey Hunner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Kamil,

I started another thread related to JS linting:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/GUgRMnnC0dM

Here is a related pull request: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2577

I have not yet changed the code style of any JavaScript files because I
wasn't certain what style should be used.

At this point I think the jshint tool should be used to enforce the
default JSHint code style.  If style exceptions arise then they can be
documented in the .jshintrc file and re-factored later.

On 04/22/2014 04:31 AM, Kamil Gałuszka wrote:
> Hi Trey,
> 
> You may be interested in this:
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20436
> 
> I've started to work on this last year on DjangoCon Europe, I never
> manage to finish my work mostly because of my work on thesis and other
> stuff. 
> 
> Maybe I will finish this ticket this week and you start writing UnitTest
> for that?
> 
> Cheers
> Kamil Gałuszka
> 
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:50:19 PM UTC+2, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> 
> Hi Trey, all,
> 
> I know we shortly talked about that at PyCon but I forgot to mention
> that a while ago we took a stab at that already. Sean Bleier was spear
> heading it and I helped out here and there:
> https://github.com/sebleier/django/compare/4f3ad28a9b4ffc3ae9866d14f242844d5720b3be...qunit
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly we never finished it, even though it was supposed to be merged
> together with the LiveServerTestCase. It was providing a "jstest"
> management command that was just runserver in disguise with an
> enforced URLconf with a few views to render JS test pages.
> 
> The actual core part was a collector for JS test suites
> (conventionally placed in /tests/javascript). Each suite could
> test any kind of local and remote files and used staticfiles for
> serving them.
> 
> I'm not suggesting to re-use this code but wanted to mention that
> we've worked on it and found it pretty good (at the time). We just
> lacked the time to finish it. Also, some parts are specific to QUnit
> but others (like the suite collector) could be reused for other test
> runners.
> 
> All in all, I'm all for supporting some way for writing JS tests as
> part of Django apps but would be a lot more careful about what
> technique/tool to use given the fast paced changes in JS land. I admit
> I don't have experience with Jasmine though so take my advise with a
> grain of salt :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jannis
> 
> 
> On 16.04.14 23:57, Trey Hunner wrote:
>> I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but
>> it looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.
> 
>> Some of my thoughts on this issue:
> 
>> This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There
>> are many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used
>> for easier community support.
> 
>> Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the
>> Django server.
> 
>> JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into
>> the automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the
>> browser, but automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and
>> sometimes PhantomJS (for headless testing).
> 
>> The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing
>> process. If the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do
>> using a single command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task
>> runner).
> 
>> This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be
>> done in small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first
>> big step.
> 
>> What do others think about this issue?
> 
>> -- Trey Hunner
> 
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this
>> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
>> django-develop...@googlegroups.com 
>>  >. To post to
>> this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com 
>> . Visit this
> group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers
> . To view this
>> discussion on the web visit
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAwHVJ7HfeWOui3pAT3nQJeABP_Vt5WQe1N5%2BvDs%2Bnt8GQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  >.
> 
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> 

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Trey Hunner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thanks for the information Jannis.  I hadn't realized that project got
to the point of a pull request.

Personally I prefer running unit tests without LiveServerTestCase.  It
seems like LiveServerTestCase should be used for functional tests (using
selenium) and not unit tests.

I had not anticipated taking up the task of creating a custom
Python-based test harness for JavaScript tests.  I am not necessarily
opposed to this idea, but it seems like a complex solution to a simple
problem.  I'm more concerned with getting the JavaScript properly tested
than I am with creating a Python-powered JavaScript test harness.  I
think that problem (if it is one) could be resolved later without much
hassle in migration.

I disagree with Marc's suggestion that being able to run both Python and
JS tests at the same time "must be better".  I see these tests as
distinct from the Python tests.  I am certainly biased from my past
experience attempting to run JavaScript tests through Python and giving
up in favor of the more common solution of using Node and PhantomJS.

The great thing about JavaScript tests is that they just run in HTML
files, so if JS unit tests are run through PhantomJS and Node initially
they can be migrated to use a Selenium and Python wrapper later if
desired.  Also, regardless of the solution chosen, it should always be
possible to manually run the tests with a web browser.

Sorry for the gap in my reply time.  I have been busy this week and
haven't had time to put together a DEP yet.

On 04/19/2014 04:50 AM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> Hi Trey, all,
> 
> I know we shortly talked about that at PyCon but I forgot to mention
> that a while ago we took a stab at that already. Sean Bleier was spear
> heading it and I helped out here and there:
> https://github.com/sebleier/django/compare/4f3ad28a9b4ffc3ae9866d14f242844d5720b3be...qunit
> 
> Sadly we never finished it, even though it was supposed to be merged
> together with the LiveServerTestCase. It was providing a "jstest"
> management command that was just runserver in disguise with an
> enforced URLconf with a few views to render JS test pages.
> 
> The actual core part was a collector for JS test suites
> (conventionally placed in /tests/javascript). Each suite could
> test any kind of local and remote files and used staticfiles for
> serving them.
> 
> I'm not suggesting to re-use this code but wanted to mention that
> we've worked on it and found it pretty good (at the time). We just
> lacked the time to finish it. Also, some parts are specific to QUnit
> but others (like the suite collector) could be reused for other test
> runners.
> 
> All in all, I'm all for supporting some way for writing JS tests as
> part of Django apps but would be a lot more careful about what
> technique/tool to use given the fast paced changes in JS land. I admit
> I don't have experience with Jasmine though so take my advise with a
> grain of salt :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jannis
> 
> 
> On 16.04.14 23:57, Trey Hunner wrote:
>> I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but
>> it looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.
> 
>> Some of my thoughts on this issue:
> 
>> This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There
>> are many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used
>> for easier community support.
> 
>> Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the
>> Django server.
> 
>> JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into
>> the automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the
>> browser, but automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and
>> sometimes PhantomJS (for headless testing).
> 
>> The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing
>> process. If the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do
>> using a single command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task
>> runner).
> 
>> This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be
>> done in small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first
>> big step.
> 
>> What do others think about this issue?
> 
>> -- Trey Hunner
> 
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this
>> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
>> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> . To post to
>> this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com 
>> . Visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this
>> discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAwHVJ7HfeWOui3pAT3nQJeABP_Vt5WQe1N5%2BvDs%2Bnt8GQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> 
> 

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Kamil Gałuszka]

Hi Trey,

You may be interested in this:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20436

I've started to work on this last year on DjangoCon Europe, I never manage 
to finish my work mostly because of my work on thesis and other stuff. 

Maybe I will finish this ticket this week and you start writing UnitTest 
for that?

Cheers
Kamil Gałuszka

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:50:19 PM UTC+2, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- 
> Hash: SHA1 
>
> Hi Trey, all, 
>
> I know we shortly talked about that at PyCon but I forgot to mention 
> that a while ago we took a stab at that already. Sean Bleier was spear 
> heading it and I helped out here and there: 
>
> https://github.com/sebleier/django/compare/4f3ad28a9b4ffc3ae9866d14f242844d5720b3be...qunit
>  
>
> Sadly we never finished it, even though it was supposed to be merged 
> together with the LiveServerTestCase. It was providing a "jstest" 
> management command that was just runserver in disguise with an 
> enforced URLconf with a few views to render JS test pages. 
>
> The actual core part was a collector for JS test suites 
> (conventionally placed in /tests/javascript). Each suite could 
> test any kind of local and remote files and used staticfiles for 
> serving them. 
>
> I'm not suggesting to re-use this code but wanted to mention that 
> we've worked on it and found it pretty good (at the time). We just 
> lacked the time to finish it. Also, some parts are specific to QUnit 
> but others (like the suite collector) could be reused for other test 
> runners. 
>
> All in all, I'm all for supporting some way for writing JS tests as 
> part of Django apps but would be a lot more careful about what 
> technique/tool to use given the fast paced changes in JS land. I admit 
> I don't have experience with Jasmine though so take my advise with a 
> grain of salt :) 
>
> Cheers, 
> Jannis 
>
>
> On 16.04.14 23:57, Trey Hunner wrote: 
> > I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but 
> > it looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years. 
> > 
> > Some of my thoughts on this issue: 
> > 
> > This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There 
> > are many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used 
> > for easier community support. 
> > 
> > Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the 
> > Django server. 
> > 
> > JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into 
> > the automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the 
> > browser, but automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and 
> > sometimes PhantomJS (for headless testing). 
> > 
> > The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing 
> > process. If the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do 
> > using a single command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task 
> > runner). 
> > 
> > This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be 
> > done in small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first 
> > big step. 
> > 
> > What do others think about this issue? 
> > 
> > -- Trey Hunner 
> > 
> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> > Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this 
> > group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
> > django-develop...@googlegroups.com  
> > . 
> To post to 
> > this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com  
> > . Visit this group 
> at 
> > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this 
> > discussion on the web visit 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAwHVJ7HfeWOui3pAT3nQJeABP_Vt5WQe1N5%2BvDs%2Bnt8GQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> > 
> > 
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAwHVJ7HfeWOui3pAT3nQJeABP_Vt5WQe1N5%2BvDs%2Bnt8GQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
>  
>
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- 
> Version: GnuPG v1 
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ 
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTUmL6AAoJEMeVlW+0idypTNYP/37E7THRsG1BG5uc55nVkTSP 
> tZ6l7XaOtCfwv82N0sXHVGbBek1UPXfm+3VENAZBxrMyJdGybTcn9q6RGXeKsPE6 
> xunFI1IuHEMjzBG6KcL0d2t3CVOeGIMvTNkn3Lr7FM3bl7JYds5PtsislUiH56sY 
> qDoDkKP+GXglH5sswxB54vyiAf85g7Rh7wcq0klxlLy1D46aH+NqrVFMqWirb1Rr 
> KVk4Y8H3khRMrOyz17yF/s7Qkbtj3zP+5W1UG3AZZlDYjxMF6sRl+2oTsT27oq31 
> hSLyhEJ6+3RhSTwPnK2OzNa4LtqJaOlv7+mwOgwiFy77BDFNrOhbBITKvTguYnNU 
> e46QgzGOAUqNv+bxV7gksdWX3oWLjgvbHrkVISPjlaxbRowRURrYPOyuflZMQoOP 
> aVmVRiWw0WcwqYrJyGiPJzsctTjcK4r1sflW6XN0zSJCgohHTkVH1cvnAQRWIfKB 
> dHwjfwXOyaAYAtE2gE2+/jRn93Oq6HS8Lj8msV8uIceHxW9g5VkcNlIoDEzlgTUA 
> zq7Ef8dy/TP/o4jjamv3Td5l0DOVF2ldFGkGbD9US2PuILiuKxB65ViQnRdVFP29 
> DlEBd9zYDUfB8d2idsyXZeKIyvwy/m3D//fIwssHTpHEEF5UiQFWTMgSatBZSO5k 
> 8Khnw7JwOFt0ybvHcS25 
> =8lha 
> -END PGP SIGNATURE- 

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Jannis Leidel]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Trey, all,

I know we shortly talked about that at PyCon but I forgot to mention
that a while ago we took a stab at that already. Sean Bleier was spear
heading it and I helped out here and there:
https://github.com/sebleier/django/compare/4f3ad28a9b4ffc3ae9866d14f242844d5720b3be...qunit

Sadly we never finished it, even though it was supposed to be merged
together with the LiveServerTestCase. It was providing a "jstest"
management command that was just runserver in disguise with an
enforced URLconf with a few views to render JS test pages.

The actual core part was a collector for JS test suites
(conventionally placed in /tests/javascript). Each suite could
test any kind of local and remote files and used staticfiles for
serving them.

I'm not suggesting to re-use this code but wanted to mention that
we've worked on it and found it pretty good (at the time). We just
lacked the time to finish it. Also, some parts are specific to QUnit
but others (like the suite collector) could be reused for other test
runners.

All in all, I'm all for supporting some way for writing JS tests as
part of Django apps but would be a lot more careful about what
technique/tool to use given the fast paced changes in JS land. I admit
I don't have experience with Jasmine though so take my advise with a
grain of salt :)

Cheers,
Jannis


On 16.04.14 23:57, Trey Hunner wrote:
> I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but
> it looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.
> 
> Some of my thoughts on this issue:
> 
> This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There
> are many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used
> for easier community support.
> 
> Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the
> Django server.
> 
> JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into
> the automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the
> browser, but automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and
> sometimes PhantomJS (for headless testing).
> 
> The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing
> process. If the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do
> using a single command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task
> runner).
> 
> This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be
> done in small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first
> big step.
> 
> What do others think about this issue?
> 
> -- Trey Hunner
> 
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this
> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> . To post to
> this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com 
> . Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this
> discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAwHVJ7HfeWOui3pAT3nQJeABP_Vt5WQe1N5%2BvDs%2Bnt8GQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> 
.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=8lha
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/535262FB.9060704%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Marc Tamlyn]

Having worked with both, I'd like to put in a vote for Jasmine over QUnit.
Unit test is a Java construct which can feel out of place in Python, never
mind JS. I find QUnit clunky and difficult to write, whereas jasmine (as a
behavioural tool) is pleasant to write and likely comes closer to the kind
of tests we would run - checking user interactions with the admin do the
correct thing.

As an aside, there may be a way of avoiding the NodeJS problem for devs - I
think a static HTML file which includes all the jasmine test files (or
QUnit) would work in any (good) browser for local manual testing. We would
then either use Phantom for Jenkins, or in theory we could open that
aforementioned file using Selenium and check it runs all the JS tests
properly. This is probably vile though.

The absolute best solution is to use Jasmine in browser opened via selenium
or similar but report back individual test results via a socket to a custom
python unit test reporter - reporting each JS test with details to the
console as it if were a Python test. This is effectively what karma.js does
from what I remember. This would not only be great for our test suite, but
allow easily writing front end tests for any Django application. Several
projects I have worked on has two completely distinct test suites one for
JS and one for python. Being able to run both together must be better - and
may also allow use of LiveServer like functionality within your JS (leaky)
"unit" tests.

Marc
On 18 Apr 2014 22:10, "Trey Hunner"  wrote:

> > On 04/16/2014 07:20 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> >
> > 2) Is there anything that can save us from the Node.js kudzu? :-)
>
> Yes.  Removing JavaScript from Django. :-)
>
> JSHint requires Node.js and running automated JavaScript tests
> typically requires Node.js and PhantomJS.
>
> Node.js is pretty easy to install and it would only be required for
> JavaScript linting and automated testing.  You wouldn't necessarily
> need Node.js to manually run the tests locally in a browser, but you
> would need it for running tests from the command line.
>
>
> > You've definitely identified that this is a long term project; so if you
> > can lay out a map for the way forward, with an indication of the end
> > goal, that would be a fantastic start IMHO.
>
> Agreed.  I will try formulating a more concrete proposal.  I work
> full-stack but I have limited experience with JavaScript testing
> frameworks, so my personal preferences include a sample size of one.
> I will try to keep my suggestions to the community standards as I
> perceive them.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Carl Meyer  wrote:
> >
> > A DEP might be a good format to summarize the thinking that goes into
> > picking a particular tech stack for JS tests.
>
> I will look at the DEPs and try to propose a concrete example there.
>
>
> > (FWIW, on my company's projects we unit-test JS using Node, PhantomJS,
> > Grunt, QUnit, and Istanbul for test coverage measurement, so that's the
> > stack I'm familiar with. It's worked very well for us; there's a
> > grunt-qunit-istanbul plugin that brings the pieces together nicely. But
> > I didn't make those choices and am not familiar with the alternatives;
> > there may be better options.)
>
> I have a very similar setup.  I chose qunit because it seemed popular
> among front-end JavaScript projects and because jQuery uses it.
>
> QUnit and Jasmine seem like the winners in this space at the moment.
>
> We may also want to consider looking at the Karma test runner by the
> Angular.js team (it supports a number of test frameworks including
> QUnit and Jasmine).  I know little about it, so feedback on this would
> be helpful.  This may be something that can be added later.
>
> I analyzed the test runners used by the top 12 front-end JavaScript
> libraries on Github (according to the API).  Here are the numbers:
>
> QUnit test framework is used by:
> - Backbone
> - Ember.js
> - Knockout
> - Reveal.js
> - jQuery
> - three.js
> - jQuery-File-Upload
>
> Jasmine test framework is used by:
> - Knockout
> - Spine
> - Brackets
> - Angular.js (using Karma)
>
> Vows test framework is used by:
> - d3
>
> I'll start working on that DEP.
>
> --
> Trey Hunner
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAxsRN6YwSM5GfA42TEgMv3cWeJ27L3gW5Yh%2Bpm5ASwMag%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Trey Hunner]

> On 04/16/2014 07:20 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> 2) Is there anything that can save us from the Node.js kudzu? :-)

Yes.  Removing JavaScript from Django. :-)

JSHint requires Node.js and running automated JavaScript tests
typically requires Node.js and PhantomJS.

Node.js is pretty easy to install and it would only be required for
JavaScript linting and automated testing.  You wouldn't necessarily
need Node.js to manually run the tests locally in a browser, but you
would need it for running tests from the command line.


> You've definitely identified that this is a long term project; so if you
> can lay out a map for the way forward, with an indication of the end
> goal, that would be a fantastic start IMHO.

Agreed.  I will try formulating a more concrete proposal.  I work
full-stack but I have limited experience with JavaScript testing
frameworks, so my personal preferences include a sample size of one.
I will try to keep my suggestions to the community standards as I
perceive them.


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Carl Meyer  wrote:
>
> A DEP might be a good format to summarize the thinking that goes into
> picking a particular tech stack for JS tests.

I will look at the DEPs and try to propose a concrete example there.


> (FWIW, on my company's projects we unit-test JS using Node, PhantomJS,
> Grunt, QUnit, and Istanbul for test coverage measurement, so that's the
> stack I'm familiar with. It's worked very well for us; there's a
> grunt-qunit-istanbul plugin that brings the pieces together nicely. But
> I didn't make those choices and am not familiar with the alternatives;
> there may be better options.)

I have a very similar setup.  I chose qunit because it seemed popular
among front-end JavaScript projects and because jQuery uses it.

QUnit and Jasmine seem like the winners in this space at the moment.

We may also want to consider looking at the Karma test runner by the
Angular.js team (it supports a number of test frameworks including
QUnit and Jasmine).  I know little about it, so feedback on this would
be helpful.  This may be something that can be added later.

I analyzed the test runners used by the top 12 front-end JavaScript
libraries on Github (according to the API).  Here are the numbers:

QUnit test framework is used by:
- Backbone
- Ember.js
- Knockout
- Reveal.js
- jQuery
- three.js
- jQuery-File-Upload

Jasmine test framework is used by:
- Knockout
- Spine
- Brackets
- Angular.js (using Karma)

Vows test framework is used by:
- d3

I'll start working on that DEP.

-- 
Trey Hunner

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAxsRN6YwSM5GfA42TEgMv3cWeJ27L3gW5Yh%2Bpm5ASwMag%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Carl Meyer]

On 04/16/2014 07:20 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Trey Hunner  > wrote:
> 
> I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but
> it looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.
> 
> Some of my thoughts on this issue:
> 
> This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There
> are many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used
> for easier community support.
> 
> Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the
> Django server.
> 
> JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into the
> automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the
> browser, but automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and
> sometimes PhantomJS (for headless testing).
> 
> The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing
> process.  If the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do
> using a single command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task
> runner).
> 
> This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be
> done in small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first
> big step.
> 
> What do others think about this issue?
> 
> 
> I have two thoughts:
> 
> 1) More testing doubleplus good. :-)
> 
> 2) Is there anything that can save us from the Node.js kudzu? :-)
> 
> As with your previous question about linting, I don't have any firm
> opinions about this, beyond "Yes, we should do it". 
> 
> My suggestion here would be to proceed as if we all agree that this is a
> good idea (more testing good, etc), and make a concrete proposal. It's a
> lot easier to discuss a concrete proposal than to just kick around
> buzzwords and hope some of them stick :-). 
> 
> You've definitely identified that this is a long term project; so if you
> can lay out a map for the way forward, with an indication of the end
> goal, that would be a fantastic start IMHO.

I agree that this would be a good idea - thanks for working on it!

A DEP might be a good format to summarize the thinking that goes into
picking a particular tech stack for JS tests.

(FWIW, on my company's projects we unit-test JS using Node, PhantomJS,
Grunt, QUnit, and Istanbul for test coverage measurement, so that's the
stack I'm familiar with. It's worked very well for us; there's a
grunt-qunit-istanbul plugin that brings the pieces together nicely. But
I didn't make those choices and am not familiar with the alternatives;
there may be better options.)

Carl

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/53500FA9.5030009%40oddbird.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Matthew Lauber]

Regarding running javascript tests, could we consider something like rhino?
 Just an off the top of my head suggestion.  Would avoid node.js, not sure
if it's an improvement though.

Matt Lauber


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Trey Hunner  wrote:
>
>> I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but it
>> looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.
>>
>> Some of my thoughts on this issue:
>>
>> This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There are
>> many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used for easier
>> community support.
>>
>> Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the Django
>> server.
>>
>> JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into the
>> automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the browser, but
>> automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and sometimes PhantomJS
>> (for headless testing).
>>
>> The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing process.  If
>> the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do using a single
>> command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task runner).
>>
>> This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be done in
>> small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first big step.
>>
>> What do others think about this issue?
>>
>
> I have two thoughts:
>
> 1) More testing doubleplus good. :-)
>
> 2) Is there anything that can save us from the Node.js kudzu? :-)
>
> As with your previous question about linting, I don't have any firm
> opinions about this, beyond "Yes, we should do it".
>
> My suggestion here would be to proceed as if we all agree that this is a
> good idea (more testing good, etc), and make a concrete proposal. It's a
> lot easier to discuss a concrete proposal than to just kick around
> buzzwords and hope some of them stick :-).
>
> You've definitely identified that this is a long term project; so if you
> can lay out a map for the way forward, with an indication of the end goal,
> that would be a fantastic start IMHO.
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq84_2u%3DtUpEKwOQ0fPDFcOB80w0K%3Dh%2By_Kg6DM7T8LkSPOg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA%2BU9Apc5e_w7S3WGpDVd70oEGSL9rk1zo52w9-1KLUanYNeTFw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Russell Keith-Magee]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Trey Hunner  wrote:

> I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but it
> looks like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.
>
> Some of my thoughts on this issue:
>
> This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There are
> many good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used for easier
> community support.
>
> Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the Django
> server.
>
> JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into the
> automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the browser, but
> automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and sometimes PhantomJS
> (for headless testing).
>
> The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing process.  If
> the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do using a single
> command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task runner).
>
> This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be done in
> small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first big step.
>
> What do others think about this issue?
>

I have two thoughts:

1) More testing doubleplus good. :-)

2) Is there anything that can save us from the Node.js kudzu? :-)

As with your previous question about linting, I don't have any firm
opinions about this, beyond "Yes, we should do it".

My suggestion here would be to proceed as if we all agree that this is a
good idea (more testing good, etc), and make a concrete proposal. It's a
lot easier to discuss a concrete proposal than to just kick around
buzzwords and hope some of them stick :-).

You've definitely identified that this is a long term project; so if you
can lay out a map for the way forward, with an indication of the end goal,
that would be a fantastic start IMHO.

Yours,
Russ Magee %-)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq84_2u%3DtUpEKwOQ0fPDFcOB80w0K%3Dh%2By_Kg6DM7T8LkSPOg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Proposal: Write unit tests for JavaScript

[Trey Hunner]

I saw a previous discussion about JavaScript testing in Django but it looks
like there hasn't been any progress in a few years.

Some of my thoughts on this issue:

This would require choosing a JavaScript testing framework.  There are many
good ones out there.  A popular one should probably used for easier
community support.

Unit testing JavaScript (ideally) should not require running the Django
server.

JavaScript tests will probably require introducing Node.js into the
automated testing process.  Tests can be run manually from the browser, but
automated JavaScript tests tend to require Node.js and sometimes PhantomJS
(for headless testing).

The JavaScript tests should be run as part of the CI testing process.  If
the tests are run standalone this should be easy to do using a single
command (possibly requiring grunt or a similar task runner).

This seems like it would be a big change, but I think it could be done in
small steps.  Setting up the testing framework is the first big step.

What do others think about this issue?

-- 
Trey Hunner

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACuWcAwHVJ7HfeWOui3pAT3nQJeABP_Vt5WQe1N5%2BvDs%2Bnt8GQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.