On 5 May 2005, at 18:00, David Wheeler wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 04:26 , Adrian Howard wrote:
Here's a weird idea: how about the option of AJAXing the test
harness results back to a receiving server somewhere that
understands TAP? Bingo: TAP testing of JS embedded in web pages in
its native habi
David Wheeler wrote:
> On May 5, 2005, at 04:26 , Adrian Howard wrote:
>
Here's a weird idea: how about the option of AJAXing the test
harness results back to a receiving server somewhere that
understands TAP? Bingo: TAP testing of JS embedded in web pages in
its native ha
On May 5, 2005, at 04:26 , Adrian Howard wrote:
Here's a weird idea: how about the option of AJAXing the test
harness results back to a receiving server somewhere that
understands TAP? Bingo: TAP testing of JS embedded in web pages
in its native habitat.
That's just evil. Maybe when Schwern
On 4 May 2005, at 01:14, David Wheeler wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 14:27 , Joe McMahon wrote:
Here's a weird idea: how about the option of AJAXing the test harness
results back to a receiving server somewhere that understands TAP?
Bingo: TAP testing of JS embedded in web pages in its native habitat
On May 3, 2005, at 14:27 , Joe McMahon wrote:
Here's a weird idea: how about the option of AJAXing the test
harness results back to a receiving server somewhere that
understands TAP? Bingo: TAP testing of JS embedded in web pages in
its native habitat.
That's just evil. Maybe when Schwern or
On Apr 29, 2005, at 12:15 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
So for my next trick, a harness! I have to give some thought for how
to combine a bunch of JS tests into one output. Maybe a JS script that
spawns hidden frames and runs the tests in them, then collects the
output from them (directly from detail
