On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 13:28, Luca Morandini wrote:
Ugo Cei wrote:
I used WebTest for a while, but in the end I found that writing tests in
XML is way too verbose and clumsy.
I had the same experience... later on I moved to HTMLUnit ([1]), which
offers a lot:
1) Different browsers
Le 21 mars 05, à 15:59, Alfred Nathaniel a écrit :
...I have now rewritten all existing Anteater tests using HtmlUnit
Cool, looking forward to it!
-Bertrand
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 09/mar/05, alle 08:01, Bertrand Delacretaz ha scritto:
Le 9 mars 05, à 00:11, Alfred Nathaniel a écrit :
...Does anybody have practical experience with Canoo WebTest which
speaks
for/against this product? Or any other product? Or is nobody
testing?..
I used WebTest for
Il giorno 09/mar/05, alle 08:01, Bertrand Delacretaz ha scritto:
Le 9 mars 05, à 00:11, Alfred Nathaniel a écrit :
...Does anybody have practical experience with Canoo WebTest which
speaks
for/against this product? Or any other product? Or is nobody
testing?..
I used WebTest for a while, but
Extensive automated functional testing is the best way to keep up
software quality. There is general consensus on that, and everybody is
doing it - right?
The industry standard for testing Java classes is JUnit. When it comes
to testing web request/response conversations, the choice is less
Le 9 mars 05, à 00:11, Alfred Nathaniel a écrit :
...Does anybody have practical experience with Canoo WebTest which
speaks
for/against this product? Or any other product? Or is nobody
testing?..
Although I do not see an urgent need to move away from anteater, I've
been using HttpUnit
Alfred Nathaniel wrote:
Anteater is dead, and we should get away from it before it starts
smelling. Canoo WebTest seems to be an attractive alternative for
preserving the Anteater paradigm of tight Ant integration.
Does anybody have practical experience with Canoo WebTest which speaks
for/against
