Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

One problem with webdriver (selenium 2) testing is that Firefox can pop up repeatedly when auto testing which can be really annoying. One work around is to use a virtual display. Rather than headless testing you can do something similar on a Linux system by using an X virtual framebuffer (Xvfb) [1]

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

Hi Bess, +1 for Jasmine. Used to dig blue-ridge for these things, but I don't think they're maintaining that any more. Wayne On 1/27/11 9:37 AM, "John Loy" wrote: > Bess, > > Good to hear from you! I've been using Jasmine with its jQuery > extension

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

Bess, Good to hear from you! I've been using Jasmine with its jQuery extensionfor HTML fixtures and DOM-related expect methods in tandem with Google's JsTestDriver . For data fixtures, take a look as Jupiter

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

Hey Bess, dunno if you're still looking, but a friend just mentioned this project running Jasmine tests headless with EnvJS: https://github.com/trevmex/EnvJasmine. I haven't tried it out or anything, but looks somewhat interesting. On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Bess Sadler wrote: > Can anyone

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

For testing of the citeproc-js utility (used in Zotero and Mendeley bibliography managers), I use the DOH test framework from the Dojo project. When running code in Rhino (or other standalone interpreter such as jslibs/jshost), It provides a command-line test environment, similar to that used in P

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

I've used Selenium with Cucumber just enough to know that I want to try it more. I've segregated my tests into non-javascript cucumber features that run fast and javascript tests that run much slower. I run the fast tests with autotest as I develop features. Everything ought to degrade nicely, so I

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

-- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of >> Jonathan Rochkind >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:32 AM >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing? >> >> As far as I can tell, whil

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

I have the MyEclipse debugger, but in practice, I don't use it often. I have used a variety of Javascript dev platforms over the years, starting with one that was bundled with ColdFusion Studio/Homesite, and have found that they seem to take more time and effort than they save. I do use Firebug in

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:32 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing? > > As far as I can tell, while there are several, there are none that

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

As far as I can tell, while there are several, there are none that are actually Just Work good. It seems to be an area still in flux, people coming up with an open source way to do that that is reliable and easy to use and just works. The main division in current approaches seems to be betwee

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

hi bess, i've used yui test [1]. with this tool i still had to visit the page of my test suite manually with a browser, but considering the browser compatibility issues of javascript, i guess you'll have to do this anyway. regards, robert [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/yuitest/ On Wed, Jan 12

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

Here at Lucid we've got some Jasmine going on for LWE JS testing. Erik On Jan 11, 2011, at 21:25, Gabriel Farrell wrote: > I like QUnit because it's minimal and I'm used to unit testing. A lot > of people are jumping on Jasmine, though. It might be more your style > if you're into BDD. >

Re: [CODE4LIB] javascript testing?

I like QUnit because it's minimal and I'm used to unit testing. A lot of people are jumping on Jasmine, though. It might be more your style if you're into BDD. On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Bess Sadler wrote: > Can anyone recommend a javascript testing framework? At Stanford, we know we > nee