On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> I agree that dealing with the script to generate tests and having the actual
> test content be in a different file is a significant maintenance overhead.
> But I also think that having standard testing code across many tests reduces
> the amoun
I agree that dealing with the script to generate tests and having the actual
test content be in a different file is a significant maintenance overhead.
But I also think that having standard testing code across many tests reduces
the amount of effort it takes to understand a test.
We discussed this
On Aug 13, 2010, at 3:17 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> Of course, there is the special case of fast/js tests, which we (I think)
> still hope to run without a WebView one day. For that, keeping JS separate is
> obviously desirable.
Absolutely agreed - and these can already be run in a comman
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
>
> On multiple occasions, I've been noticing that separating JavaScript for
> tests into its own file has been causing me pain. There are several
> disadvantages that I know of:
>
> 1. One doesn't see test content when a tool (such as
On multiple occasions, I've been noticing that separating JavaScript for tests
into its own file has been causing me pain. There are several disadvantages
that I know of:
1. One doesn't see test content when a tool (such as run-webkit-tests) sends
them to a failing test. If I want to see it in
5 matches
Mail list logo
