On 04/21/2011 01:10 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh
Thanks for the feedback!
Yes, I agree early and thorough review is needed and my expectation
was/is that those vested in a spec and its test suite would actively
participate in the creation and review of tests, regardless of whether
that function was documented or not. I will add some related
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh raised.
Apologies for the lateness of these
On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is
On 4/19/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward
I agree the need for clear test suite status is implied and should be
explicit. I've added a new requirement for this to [1]. As to how this
requirement is addressed, perhaps we should adopt/re-use some existing
good practice; otherwise perhaps we can use a Status/Readme file in each
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is allowed.
I'll reiterate that I think multiple
On 4/18/11, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com
wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: Within each test one
may have a number of asserts.
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
A test with 0 assertions could be used to test exceptions but only if
the testing framework provides for @throws annotation (my
TestRunner.js does).
testharness.js has an assert_throws() function that can be used in
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
10 matches
Mail list logo
