Please see if WicketTester is more appropriate for you. An other choice could be jWebUnit. But it requires a servlet container and is pure html validation
Juergen On 10/30/05, Iman RahmatiZadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, Thanks. My mistake. In fact I was looking for something like the one you > suggested, delegating the whole scenario to my application object. One more > question, what's your strategy for unit testing ? From what I saw in > SortableTableHeadersTest ,would it be: > > 1- Setup the application, page and stuff > 2- Feed the needed data to the page (probably with injection) > 3- Setup request and response, and process the request cycle > 4- Validate the generated page against some previously generated page > > The last step is quite easy in simple applications, but in bigger ones, > where the page style, or various tag attributes change frequently i'm > looking for a more abstract way of validating the markup than just a string > equality check. > > Regards, > Iman > > > On 10/30/05, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 10/30/05, Iman RahmatiZadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Argh ! Unit testing is way too hard in wicket. I'm using a custom > > > implementation of WebSession in my application. The problem arises when > I > > > use the MockWebApplication class for testing, which creates and uses > > > WebSession for tests and my page classes which depend on my > implementation > > > of WebSession cant work with it. I can't implement another > > > MockWebApplication, because getSession() in WebApplication has package > > > access, and it's critical for setting up the session. Has anybody solved > > > such problems ? Does anybody know the preferred way of unit testing (not > > > functional testing) the pages ? > > > > Where does MockWebApplication create its own WebSession??? It uses > > WebApplication.getSessionFactory().newSession() which is > Wickets > > standard means and works nicely in my unit tests. > > > > WicketTester is derived from MockWebApplication and provides some > > convience method. May be that is what your are looking for. > > > > What IMO would be nice if MockWebApplication would delegate to my > > application object instead of being derived from WebApplication. > > Reason: Today I basically have to copy MyApplication to > > MyMockApplication and changes the derived class to MockWebApplication. > > If MockWebApplication would delegate to an application object, there > > were no more need to do so. > > > > Juergen > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. > > Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course > > Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 > > Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for > more information > > _______________________________________________ > > Wicket-user mailing list > > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
