I'm beginning to look at testing the framework itself using a Mock Objects approach.
Could you (Christian) expand on the risks and benefits of this kind of change. I'm not familiar with HttpUnit; perhaps you could explain its overall premise. The risk is that, in some cases, client-side scripting may be reliant on explicitly setting the id attribute of particular elements. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tapestry.sf.net > Chrisitan Noack wrote: > > Al lot of HTML elements can be given an id. You can use this id very well > > to test your application with HttpUnit. Some of the ids are already set by > > tapestry automatically and some are not. Wouldn't it be good to have all > > comonent ids automatically set as HTML ids wherever that is possible? > > Are you really sure you want to rely on automatically generated ids in > your HTTPUnit test cases? What if your HTML changes? Do the generated > ids change as well? In that case you can dump your testcase and redo it, > which is something I would't really like to do on a frequent basis. > > OTOH, having some automated test support would be nice. I currently > don't do HTTPUnit testing because of the very same dilemma (in WebObjects). > > Just my 0.02 EUR, > > -dirk > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Tapestry-developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
