# [email protected] / 2013-08-16 11:44:39 +0200: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:22:21 +0200 > Roman Neuhauser <[email protected]> wrote: > > # [email protected] / 2013-08-14 10:06:54 +0200: > > > > The question is if we could do more and also use integration > > > > testing [3] in the future. Like the installer could setup > > > > partitioning and then check bootloader and software proposal. > > > > That would probably need some UI support, but in some cases it > > > > could be nice. > > > > > > not sure about this > > > > if it can drive code, it can drive code. integration tests are not > > that different from unit tests. or am i missing something? > > There is one big difference. Good unit test have minimum of mocking. > But integration test for yast means increadible bunch of mocking as you > usually don't want to break testing machine.
I'd say both contexts require this capability, period. See eg. yast-installation/src/modules/SystemFilesCopy.rb. OTOH... > For me integration testing is better in simulated environment and I > think it is better to use completelly different tool like openqa or > cucumber in virtualized > environment. ... yeah, this is a different kind and scale of "mocking". > Actually for me it is almost must have ability to run one test or at > least one test file as usually testing take some time and when I > detecting problem I want isolated run of test. But almost all > frameworks support it, but sometimes it needs small help. Agreed, the ability to choose a subset of tests to run on the command line is important. -- roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
